[Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association Boardwalk Pavilion - Source of Dispute.]
This week New Jersey courts issued a preliminary ruling on Bernstein and Paster v. Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, the case of same-sex "marriage" v. religion. Guess who won? The lawsuit was initially brought against the Methodist church in order to strip its tax-exempt status and penalize it on the grounds of failure to comply with the public use clause of state-wide tax-exemption legalese. Now, however, it would seem that gay rights activists are taking advantage of this outrageous offensive to make more bold assertions and demands for legal reform and accommodation of those experiencing same-sex attractions. It appears that the slippery slope argument is not so much the logical fallacy that proponents of gay marriage would have the world believe.
From the Fox News online coverage of this story, I draw two revealing excerpts that present opinions held by gay rights advocates responding to this legal battle:
"Supporters of gay rights say the discrimination shows that New Jersey's two-year-old civil unions law falls short of its intent to give gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples."
I was not aware that marriage ceremonies performed on private church property are "legal rights" for anyone. In fact, it is the church, not the individual or couple, whose right it is to act (or not act) in any manner they so choose as dictated by their federally protected religious convictions. That correction aside, I take issue with additional erroneous vocabulary lurking in this assertion. Civil unions have not been implemented in order to give gay couples "the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples." In truth, they have been adopted in order to give gay couples the same legal protections as heterosexual married couples. Protection from medical discrimination, protection from legal discrimination, etc. Heterosexual married couples do not have any need to be protected from religious organizations as marriage between one man and one woman is and always will be God's commandment. Why then, do homosexual couples feel they have some sort of twisted "right" to be protected from religion? Is that not inequality in their favor? And does it not set a dangerous precedent for the consideration of sexual orientation over religious liberty? Ours is a country which has, from its very inception, protected freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
"Earlier this month, a state commission headed by J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo, the director of the Division on Civil Rights and the author of Monday's ruling, recommended that the state allow gay couples full marriage rights."
Yes, and this weighty recommendation glides into existence on the wings of faulty research practice for which the purely anecdotal data collection method regarding the supposed inequality of civil unions failed to illuminate even one case of inequality, thus forcing members of the commission to conclude that same-sex "marriage" should be adopted in New Jersey because civil unions are "not well understood." How interesting that this same Vespa-Papaleo, head of the cobweb-cluttered-cranium commission, has now authored a ruling that smacks of religious intolerance and subjugation. One might draw the conclusion that on JFVP's ideal horizon, same-sex marriage is not only placed at an equal standing with heterosexual marriage, but that religion is dropped down a tier or two in the shuffle.
~Pearl
Posts
6 comments:
The New Jersey Law “Against Discrimination” is an example of bad laws bringing about bad consequences for society. There are times when we need to discriminate between good and evil. Refusing to rent your property to a couple who want to use it for a civil union ceremony is not unfair discrimination. The fact that they want to enter into a civil union indicates that they also wish to take part in homosexual acts. Homosexual acts are disordered and immoral according to Christian teaching. If this church group had supported this civil union by renting the property, they would also have been endorsing homosexual acts and gone against their own churches teaching. They could have been accused of hypocrisy and charged with aiding immorality and disorder in the community.
"Why then, do homosexual couples feel they have some sort of twisted "right" to be protected from religion?
It stems from the idea that religion is the source of all their guilt and misery, rather than their inner consciences. Try as you might, you can't be happy while acting on evil.
It makes logical sense, IF they were to openly admit that all their misery stems from themselves, then they'd have no one to blame it on, no enemy to fight other than the demon within, and no one wants to admit that the problem lies at home rather than at the feet of others.
SSA is a difficult problem to overcome, but the solution is straightforward. I have made enough mistakes on this earth to know that it doesn't matter how many people I convince that I'm doing right, if I'm not acting right, no amount of deception on my part will fix that nagging feeling in my soul.
Religious people acknowledge it, they don't create it.
Secular Heretic,
Good points. Additionally, it is not just Christians who view homosexual acts as disordered. Many still believe that, contrary to the APA sellout, homosexuality is a mental illness. Certainly there may be some who have a genetic predisposition to experience same-sex attraction, but the fact that many walk away from that specific sexual orientation and live a happy life pursuing another sexual orientation sheds light on this illnesses non-genetic nature.
Beetle,
"Religious people acknowledge it, they don't create it."
How very profound.
It's all about loving and pursuing the truth no matter what the outcome.
It is an injustice to tell people with same sex attraction that it is not a disorder when it is. It is the same with a whole range of disorders, for example alcoholism and eating disorders. Do you tell a person who over eats constantly that they are ok in what they are doing?
"It's an injustice..."
to equate homosexuality with alcoholism and/or eating disorders. Last time I checked, one being a gay or lesbian doesn't cause drunk driving (alcoholism) or obesity (eating disorders).
I think you may misunderstand me. I don't know if taking part in homosexual acts causes alcoholism or obesity. I've never heard that idea before.
What I am suggesting is that same sex attraction is a disorder. It is similar to having an attraction to over eat or over drink alcohol. All three are disorders.
Post a Comment