If a gay couple is assaulted and the thugs are shouting "Die, faggot, die!" should a police officer be allowed to claim his religious faith prevented him from intervening? After all, Leviticus allows for a man having sex with a man to be put to death. That is only an extreme example of what the bill in Kansas might allow.
Tisinai says there are two possibilities. The first is that those calling for the law are frauds. Why aren't they calling for allowing discrimination for divorced couples who want to remarry? How about those who marry outside their faith? Or are you only clamoring for religious liberty when it comes to how to treat gay people? Yep, a fraud.
The other possibility: Someone can find some reason to oppose a given marriage -- birth control is in use, the bride isn't a virgin (and should be stoned), her first husband died and she isn't marrying his brother like she is supposed to. These reasons don't have to be rational or traditional, only sincere. And sudden conversions happen all the time. Which means nobody has to acknowledge any marriage. There would be nothing left of marriage.
Fanciful? Perhaps. Tisinai does have some genuine questions:
If this is about the principle of religious freedom, why the narrow focus on same-sex marriage?
Do you believe all sincere religious beliefs about marriage should be likewise privileged (and if not, why not)?
Do you a have a limit, a line beyond which religious beliefs no longer supersede law (and if so, where is it and why)?
Thankfully, Susan Wagle, President of the state Senate, doubts the bill has much of a chance there. Yeah, her members say, we're all for protecting marriage and religious institutions. We're even for protecting individual moral values. But this is just discrimination.
No comments:
Post a Comment