I’ll write about this when I get back…
THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA
Columbus School of Law, Interdisciplinary Program in Law & Religion
The Marriage Law Project, Washington, DC 20064
What’s the Story? A multidisciplinary discussion of Same-Sex Marriage & Religious Liberty
Monday, December 11, 2006
8:30-10:00am Sexual Orientation, Gay Marriage and Child Well- Being: Understanding the Social and Behavioral Science Debate
Are people born gay? Is there a gay gene? Because social and behavioral scientists study the ways in which society’s understanding of human sexuality affects the daily lives of individuals and groups, social and behavioral science data are among the most important components of the SSM debate. A panel of leading experts will discuss what the latest identical- twin studies and other cutting-edge scientific research suggests about the origins of sexual orientation.
Scheduled panelists include:
Michael Bailey, PhD, Professor, Northwestern University
Bradford Wilcox, PhD, Assistant Professor, University of Virginia
Warren Throckmorton, PhD, Associate Professor, Grove City College
10:15-12:00 Human Sexuality, Catholic Teaching & Human Rights
Drawing on Scripture, tradition, and the natural law, the Catechism of the Catholic Church makes two points central to the marriage debate: 1) The equality of all persons rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design (1935) and 2) All extra-marital sexual activity is forbidden (2351-2359). “Queer Theorists” the leading edge thinkers of the GLBTT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and transsexual) community take precisely the opposite view. They argue that any attempt to draw a distinction between the dignity of persons “who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies†(Catechism 2358) and their sexual conduct is at best, irrational, and, at worst, evidence of anti-homosexual hostility. So too with the traditional understandings of marriage, family, sex, gender, and sexuality.
Scheduled Panelists include:
Rev. Thomas Acklin, O.S.B, S.T.D, Ph.D, Director Of Counseling, St. Vincent Seminary
The Rev. Donald Paul Sullins, MDiv., PhD., Associate Professor, The Catholic University of America
David Crawford,PhD, Assistant Professor, John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family
1:30pm-3:00 – Send Lawyers, Lobbyists, and Lots of Money!
A panel on the financial and legal consequences for Catholic institutions when gay marriage and domestic partnerships become official state public policy. Because legalization of SSM is based on the premise that restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is a form of discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation, one of the most significant dangers facing the Church is litigation that seeks to prove that Church teaching is discriminatory. If accepted, religious organizations will not only be forced to pay damages, but also the attorney fees of the plaintiffs who sue them. Because many states also take the view that discrimination by charitable organizations is against public policy, the Church will also face a sustained attack on its tax exempt status.
Scheduled Panelists include:
Marc Stern, Assistant Executive Director of the American Jewish Congress and Co-Director of its Commission on Law and Social Action
Anthony Picarello, Esq., President and General Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Jordan Lorence, Esq., Senior Legal Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund
Robert Destro, Esq., Professor, The Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America
3:15-4:30 p.m. Religious Expression or Illegal Discrimination? Reports from the Streets
Scheduled Panelists include:
Paul Devin, Esq., Supreme Advocate, Knights of Columbus
Daniel Avila, Massachusetts Catholic Conference, Associate Director for Policy & Research
James Sweeney, Esq., Legal Counsel, California Catholic Conference
Sorry, my last post when to the wrong thread. Warren, if you want, just delete it, I’m going to be reposting it to the proper thread.
Chairm said in post 78764:
Regarding votes on state amendments that was mentioned above, here are a couple of charts that show the share of YES votes in the various states.
I don’t know where you got the data for those charts but it doesn’t match the election data I got from CNN (and a couple of other sources).
For example your chart claims in 2006 the % voting in favor of gay marriage bans was 67%, From the CNN Election result data, it was only 62.7%. Even excluding the AZ data (which I can see no valid reason for you to do that) the result would only be about 64.2% And averaging in the 2005 results (Texas and Kansas) still only gets you to 65%.
Additionally, of all the data on votes I could find prior to 2003(2002,2000, 1998), the lowest margin was 67% to 33% (Nevada 2002). All of the others were by margins greater than 67%. So I’m curious how you arrived at your 63% figure.
I stand by my original statement that polling and vote data indicate a trend towards greater support for same-sex marriage.
If anyone wants any links to the data I used, I’ll post them. And for the record Chairm I am asking for the data you used to create those charts.
Jayhuck,
Not to worry. I’m not offended that Ann does not appreciate my writing. She’s told us all several times that she refuses to read anything I write. That is certainly her right.
Considering that Ann isn’t reading this, perhaps you could ask her the following question:
What would be a good term to describe “those who are opposed or hostile to homosexual social reforms and institutions, etc.” as opposed to those who support such reforms and institutions?
Not to belabor the point, but I also find Timothy’s comments invaluable and very substantive.
Jayhuck,
I don’t think you are belaboring a point at all – I do understand that you find value and substance in the posts from both Eddy and Timothy.
Jayhuck,
Yes, I agree with you about Eddy’s contributions to the blog – I find them invaluable and very substantive and intelligent and fair. He always has an attentive audience with me
“opposed or hostile to homosexuals or to homosexual social reforms and institutions, etc.”
Jayhuck,
I promise not to get into a discussion about labels again as we both know each other’s position on it, however, based on the above definition you endorse, do you then believe that one can oppose social reforms and institutions and not the person? This is how I read the definition you stated based on the word “or” rather than “and”.
Eddy said in post 78842:
How is this a danger facing the Church?
That’s what that seminar was exploring. One real danger is that the combo of legalizing marriage and anti-discrimination legislation could put the church in the position of facing discrimination lawsuits if they refused to perform gay marriages once legalized.
There is no “danger” of any church being forced to perform marriages (or any other religious rights) contrary to the beliefs of the church. Any lawyer claiming otherwise is likely trying to drum up some business through fear-mongering, or really isn’t a very good lawyer. See Timothy’s post for more on why this wouldn’t happen.
The only “new” legal threat gay marriage would pose is if a church employee married and the church tried to refuse spousal benefits to the spouse. This isn’t really new though, because it essentially an anti-discrimination argument about whether the church is exempt from anti-discrimination laws involving gays.
If you have it Warren, I would very much like to see the transcript of the 1:30-3:00PM seminar as well.
I’ve talked to a number of gay people and suggested that Conservative Christians might be persuaded to consider ‘domestic partnership’ legislation while they’d never consider ‘gay marriage’. Only one could live with that. All of the rest wanted nothing short of ‘legalized gay marriage’. If they were “ONLY asking…the same rights”, domestic partnership would cover it.
No, actually domestic partnership (or even Civil Unions) doesn’t cover it. The problem is you are creating a new type of legal status that isn’t recognized everywhere. For example, a couple who gets a civil union in Vermont then moves to MI, what rights do they have in the new state? None, and they don’t even have the legal ability to challenge, because MI doesn’t recognize anything called a “civil union.”
Several people on here have used the term “antigay” –
Jayhuck,
That could be – I just know that I read your posts because I believe they have substance while I don’t read others.
This is pretty much how I understand the term.
Thanks!
Jayhuck,
I’ve noticed you have used the term “anti-gay” – can you describe what this term means? Is it the new buzz word or does it have any substance? Also what is the distinction between someone who is anti-gay versus someone who isn’t?
I always see my typo’s after i hit “submit comment”
No church IS required
Those who believe that the state will require any church to perform sacraments that are contrary to its faith just to appease gay people seem, to me, to be reacting out of irrational fear.
No church is not required to wed divorced persons, or Jews, or athiests, or persons of different race. Churches can deny sacraments of marriage – or the administration of marriage – to anyone whatsoever for any reason whatsoever based on their religious beliefs.
The fear of anti-gays is not that THEIR church will be FORCED to marry gays, but rather that some OTHER church will be ALLOWED to marry gays.
Take, for example, the plight of the United Church of Christ. Many ministers believe it is required by God that they treat their gay members the same as their straight members. But the government has stepped in and told them that the sacraments they wish to administer cannot be recognized if they are between members of the same sex.
What several churches (and the numbers seems to be growing monthly) have done is to refuse the administration of marriage to anyone. They will perform the sacrament for both straight and gay congregants, but refuse to say “By the power vested to me by the State of Whichever, I now pronounce you…”. If you want state recognition, you have to get that through a Justice of the Peace. They refuse to be compicit in legislated discrimination.
But for some reason “Freedom of Religion” only seems to be part of the same-sex marriage argument when it is anti-gay religion that wants freedom to impose its religious teachings on those religions who disagree.
No one wants to defend the UCC’s freedom of religion.
But if you perceive a 1 1/2 hour seminar on the dangers of litigation as a fear-mongering rally, it makes me wonder if there are any types of conservative talks you wouldn’t object to on the same basis.
You close by saying: I hope you can understand how some of us can and do see it this way. Since this challenge seems to accompany virtually every topic that comes up, I think some of us have gotten pretty good at understanding how some can see it your way. What I’d like to see in 2008, is that maybe once or twice, you’d try to understand why we see it this other way.
BTW: The Dec. 29 post seems to be in response to a pingback. The actual seminar took place a year ago. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. Do we have any evidence that any fear was mongered? 🙂 Was anyone rallied? If so, to what?
I apologize for my lateness in responding to Jayhuck’s Dec. 29th post. I was a week late in reading it because my 3 hour a week blog budget was all focussed on the Dr. Brown Responds thread.
The ‘dangers’ to be discussed were potential litigation and the financial and time constraints that could impact the church as a result of interpretations of anti-discrimination legislation. It doesn’t strike me as ‘rallying’ but rather having one seminar session on the topic of assessing potential financial impact of anti-discrimination legislation.
How is this a danger facing the Church?
That’s what that seminar was exploring. One real danger is that the combo of legalizing marriage and anti-discrimination legislation could put the church in the position of facing discrimination lawsuits if they refused to perform gay marriages once legalized.
Why do religious leaders feel it necessary to drum up this kind of fear among people?
I’m not sure why you feel that the drumming up fear among people was even on the agenda here. Wasn’t this one seminar at a leaders gathering where potential financial impact was being explored?
No church is going to be forced to wed gay people?
I don’t think you intended to end that one with a question mark. As a question or a statement, though, I don’t think anyone can say that “NO church is going to be forced to wed gay people”. There’s not a certified fortune teller among us. We can look to history for examples of what could happen though. Has the Church been legally challenged for actions it has taken against employees who have had ‘legal abortions’?
Has a clear protection been provided to the Church that recognizes their right to treat certain things as ‘sin’, and to follow Biblical principles in their response to these ‘sins’?
Gay people are only asking that the SECULAR state bestow the same rights on them as it does on other couples.
I’ve talked to a number of gay people and suggested that Conservative Christians might be persuaded to consider ‘domestic partnership’ legislation while they’d never consider ‘gay marriage’. Only one could live with that. All of the rest wanted nothing short of ‘legalized gay marriage’. If they were “ONLY asking…the same rights”, domestic partnership would cover it.
I can’t count he number of times we’ve been over this on this blog and yet this issue still seems to be coming up?
I think you need to review blog history. We’ve actually discussed same-sex marriage very little prior to the recent threads. (LOL! Time warp. This thread is from December 2006. My word ‘recent’ goes to Jan. 08 comment date.) And, even if we have discussed it, it’s clear that I, for one, still don’t see it your way. I really don’t understand the attitude behind your statement. It sounds like you’re saying “what gives? why are we talking about this? I thought we settled it.”
Which brings me to the ‘we’? Who is this ‘we’ you’re speaking for? And don’t you think it’s just a wee bit presumptuous to question what the blog owner wants to talk about on their personal blog where you’re a guest? It’s his blog and if he wants to explore a question from yet another angle, that’s his right. If the conversation doesn’t interest you any longer, or if you feel you’ve gotten all you can from it, you simply refrain from reading and/or commenting. It really shouldn’t be necessary to question or criticize the people who are still interested in a discussion.
(One possibility might be to allow the conversation to proceed without your input for a few exchanges to see if a new direction develops and then possibly jump back in. I’m trying this technique myself lately. Sometimes the discussions proceed predictably but, there have been times that I feel I would have been a hindrance to the new direction.)
There are churches that DO and WILL wed gay couples now and into the foreseeable future. The issue is with the state, NOT the church.
Agreed.
Warren,
A panel on the financial and legal consequences for Catholic institutions when gay marriage and domestic partnerships become official state public policy. Because legalization of SSM is based on the premise that restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is a form of discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation, one of the most significant dangers facing the Church is litigation
How is this a danger facing the Church? Why do religious leaders feel it necessary to drum up this kind of fear among people? No church is going to be forced to wed gay people? Gay people are only asking that the SECULAR state bestow the same rights on them as it does on other couples. I can’t count he number of times we’ve been over this on this blog and yet this issue still seems to be coming up? There are churches that DO and WILL wed gay couples now and into the foreseeable future. The issue is with the state, NOT the church.
No, Ken, I am told they are coming however. I will post links when they do.
Did you ever get the transcripts from these talks?
Yes, I do but I am waiting for the transcriptions of the sessions which we are free to post. They will provide backdrop for any other comments I might add. I can say that Dr. Bailey and I discussed collaborating on a brain imaging study of ex-gays. I plan to pursue this in January…
Not a comment but a question: You originally said you would be writing a report on the conference. Are you still planning that?
Warren,
I do hope you will have a chance to ask Dr. Bailey about his paper with Aaron Greenwood supporting parental rights to abort gay fetuses should a prenatal test for homosexuality be developed.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1010265416676
I’m glad to hear it. His history is far from benign.
I don’t think Michael Bailey would have been perceived as hostile to gay people today.
I will have more on this conference later. The presentations were transcribed and will soon be available for view.
Warren,
I find it ironic that you will be the speaker on your panel that is least hostile to gay people.
The Catholic church needs to back down. All people in the gay community want is the right to be left alone. I have a great respect for Catholicism, but such policies only alienate the increasingly liberalprogressive members of the church.