A Stitch in Haste

One of the dumbest — or smartest, depending on your point of view — assertions made by anti-gay bigots is that gays are demanding “special rights.” To me the definition of a “special right” would be the selective granting of a positive, not the selective removal of a negative. So, for example, a taxpayer subsidy or tax break targeted only for gays would be an example of a “special right.” Allowing gay couples to file joint tax returns the same as straight couples cannot, however, rationally be described as “a special right.”



Another example of the “special right” is a targeted exemption from a law. Case studies: Older structures, such as New York City subway stations, are given exemptions from the Americans with Disabilities Act — they need not be made handicapped accessible. Casinos are often granted exemptions from smoking bans, “just because.” And so on. These are true “special rights” — being treated differently from everyone else, not being treated the same as everyone else.



Armed with that, consider these two reports:



—



ITEM: Special rights for Catholics —

The Catholic Church of England and Wales has dug in for a battle with the government over proposed laws which would force their adoption agencies to consider placing children with gay couples.



Catholic leader Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor wrote to Prime Minister Tony Blair and the cabinet Tuesday, warning that the Church would have to close its adoption agencies if legislation forced them to act against their teachings.

…

The adoption agencies could close if they lose local authority funding.

…

Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly, a Catholic with links to the traditionalist Opus Dei group, has clashed with cabinet colleagues and wants an opt-out for the Church, according to reports at the weekend.

MY TAKE: An “opt-out” is just another term for a “special right.” Go figure.



In the context of adoption, meanwhile, keep some points in mind:



–Adoption is neither a religious nor a private event. It is entirely secular and also results in a government-granted decree. So the idea that Catholics have a religious “right” to enact bigoted adoption policies as a “private, religious matter” is untenable.



–”Authority” (i.e., government) funding is at stake. And yet it’s precisely the radical anti-gay Christians who frequently insist that it is entirely proper for the government to attach strings to taxpayer money — the most recent example here. So, net-net, they are unrepentant hypocrites. Go figure.



–Recall that, in the contrived brouhaha over this same issue in Massachusetts recently, the laypersons who actually run the Catholic adoption agencies were adamantly and near-unanimously opposed to the Church’s position. The very people, Catholic or otherwise, who actually “do” adoptions see how wrong, and counterproductive, the Church’s bigotry is — and want no part of it. It would not be surprising to see a similar lay-cleric schism erupt in Britain. Stay tuned.



(POST SCRIPT: Meanwhile, in the U.S. the debate over gay adoption appears to be winding down.)



—



ITEM: Special rights for Evangelicals —

A student chapter of the Christian Legal Society (CLS) at Hastings [College of Law, a part of the University of California system] has brought a lawsuit demanding an exemption from the law school’s Nondiscrimination Policy. The policy states that all student groups that seek official recognition and direct financial support must not deny membership based on a student’s race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, age, sex and sexual orientation. The CLS affiliate argues that its religious liberty is being violated by the requirement.



Last year, a federal district court disagreed with the Christian student group’s arguments and upheld the school’s right to enforce its nondiscrimination policy. The CLS has asked the 9th Circuit to reverse the lower court’s ruling.

As I said, there is no difference between an “exemption” and a “special right.” So, yet again, the radical anti-gay Christians are, net-net, nothing more than unatoned hypocrites.



The CLS’ original lawsuit was — and the appeal is — entirely frivolous. Requiring all student groups at a public university, regardless of viewpoint, to meet equally the same rational requirements (e.g., do not discriminate) is precisely what the First Amendment requires, not what it forbids. See Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984) (government may prohibit discrimination by places of public accommodation if done in a viewpoint-neutral manner). And as for attaching strings to government money, one need look no further than the bigots’ favorite recent case, Rumsfeld v. FAIR, No. 04-1152 (March 6, 2006) (see also, “Goose v. Gander” and “Payback v. Bitch“).



The case is Christian Legal Society v. Kane, No. 04-04484 (N.D. Cal., April 17, 2006) (PDF – 41 pages). The case is being appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

Similar Posts:

• Gallagher Repeats “Catholic Adoption” Lie
• PSA: New Report on Gay Adoption
• Senior Bishop Reminds Catholics to be Bigots
• Linkfest: Things You Should Read
• Naked Bigotry Update: Kansas Church to Protest Other Churches

Filed under: Uncategorized