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.