The Gaytheist Agenda

When it comes to laws designed to protect certain groups of people, laws that protect religious people are good, while laws that protect LGBT people are bad. At least in the eyes of religious people. The worst thing is that they don’t see the inherent disconnect and bigotry in fighting against laws that protect us while supporting similar laws that protect them. Take this, for example.

ACLU Urges House Committee to Fix Flawed Workplace Religious Freedom Act (2/12/2008)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: (202) 675-2312, media@dcaclu.org

Washington, DC – The American Civil Liberties Union today called on the Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions subcommittee of the House Education & Labor Committee to fix the flawed Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA). As written in the 110th Congress, the legislation threatens the personal and civil rights of religious and racial minorities, women, LGBT individuals, and persons seeking reproductive health care.

The stated goal of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act is to revise and strengthen existing requirements on employers to accommodate the religious practices of their employees. However, the current language may have a much broader impact than intended, permitting employees to claim that they do not have to comply with state or local civil rights laws.

The current WRFA would strengthen the hand of police officers who want to pick and choose who they will protect, as well as emergency health care workers and mental health counselors who could abandon patients because their care conflicts with the worker’s religious beliefs. This legislation would make it significantly harder to get health or safety information or services. Employees would be even more likely to claim that their religion prohibits them from providing contraceptive care or HIV prevention counseling – even if the employer has no one else to provide those services. In most cases, the courts have correctly rejected these claims. The current WRFA language, however, is designed to protect these individual’s dangerous actions.

Said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel with the ACLU Washington Legislative Office: “The Workplace Religious Freedom Act would allow employees, for the first time since the Civil Rights Act of 1967, to use civil rights as a weapon against others. Passing this bill without the needed fixes will jeopardize not only our rights, but also our public safety and access to health care. Civil rights protections are meant to be a shield, not a sword.

“Congress can, and should, pass legislation tightly focused on strengthening federal requirements that employers accommodate workplace scheduling changes so employees can observe religious holidays, or permit them to wear religious clothing, beards or hairstyles. These two areas account for nearly three-fourths of all the religious accommodation claims rejected by federal courts in the past 25 years. A narrowly tailored bill could address these issues without any of the completely avoidable harm the WRFA could cause if passed as written.”

It seems that legislation that is vague and allows for personal bigotries to cause discrimination and harm to others, such as LGBTs, atheists and people who are not of the same faith of the practitioner, is acceptable to some. Yet many people are fighting against ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, claiming that it would violate their “deeply held religious beliefs” and force them to hire LGBT people against the tenets of their religion. Strange they continue to think their rights (to arbitrarily discriminate in the name of their chosen religion) are so much more important than ours (to have equal Human and Civil Rights) .

I don’t by any means support discrimination against people who are religious. At the same time people cannot think they can use their religious beliefs to discriminate against others. Rights must be provided equally and fairly, or else our nation is a failure.

More than once when a L, G, B and/or T individual has stated that they are or are not voting for a particular politician because of his/her stance on some LGBT policy the cry goes out, “How can you be such a One Issue Voter?”. Of course it’s usually the case that the individual is not voting solely because of the politician’s stance on the LGBT policy, but also because of other issues as well and is mentioning only the LGBT issue at the time. But, that aside, it’s important for everybody to realize that LGBT concerns are in no way “one issue”, so voting based on them can in no way make a person a “One Issue Voter”. Allow me to break it down for you.

 
Marriage

 
Marriage in and of itself is not one issue as it provides couples so many rights and carries so many responsibilities. It also affects any children the couples may have, thereby having broader scope than just the couple themselves. However it is largely unavailable to same-sex couples.

Same-sex couples are currently allowed to legally marry in only one state, Massachusetts. Although they are granted the same rights and benefits as other married couples under state law, they are not granted any of the more than 1100 rights and responsibilities granted to married couples by the federal government. Furthermore, their marriages are not recognized as legal outside of MA, so if they travel to another state or move their rights are in jeopardy.

Five states, CA, CT, NH, NJ, and VT, offer Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships for same-sex couples. These unions offer ostensibly identical benefits and obligations to those of civil marriage in their states, but again none of the federal benefits of marriage. However it has been discovered repeatedly that the DPs/CUs fall short of their promises as they don’t actually provide the benefits they are supposed to. Employers, agencies, families and others have worked to avoid providing benefits to same-sex couples under DPs/CUs claiming that they’re not obligated to do so as the unions are not marriages. Hence the need for same-sex couples to have federally recognized legal marriage rather than the Colored Only drinking fountain of the 21st century known as DPs/CUs.

 
Four states (HI, ME, OR and WA) and DC offer DPs/CUs that offer portions of the rights enjoyed by married couples in their regions. Again, these unions are fraught with the same limitations as the others, in that they’re dependent upon others to comply with their stipulations and many try to get around them since they are not marriages.

Twenty six states have constitutional amendments that ban same-sex marriage outright, marking the first time in history that amendments have been used to write discrimination into constitutions. Forty three states have statutes restricting marriage to unions between a man and a woman including a number of the states that have DPs/CUs. (Some states have both a statute and a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage).

 
For same-sex couples who cannot marry or enter into a DP/CU, they can engage the services of a lawyer and draw up a number of documents to try to ensure that they have particular rights and privileges that opposite-sex couples would normally have. However this is often a very costly and difficult process , and may be contested by any number of people in various situations. For example it is not uncommon for one partner to be denied the right to see the other or make decisions for the other in a hospital even with Power of Attorney. When a partner dies their relatives may contest their will, making it impossible for the surviving partner to collect benefits left to them. These are just a few of the many examples of the indignities same-sex couples deal with by virtue of the fact that they are treated as second-class citizens and refused the right to marry.

Adoption

 
Adoption is another way that LGBT individuals are often denied the rights their straight peers are afforded. Ten states and DC allow “second parent adoption”, the process by which a partner in a same-sex couple can adopt his/her partner’s biological child without terminating the parental rights of the biological parent.

Single-parent adoption by individuals who are gay is outlawed in Florida, though they are allowed to be foster parents. Utah law forbids cohabiting, non-married couples to adopt, and likewise prohibits same-sex marriage thereby effectively outlawing adoption by any unmarried couples regardless of sexual orientation. That’s just one of many state and local laws that harm straight people in the process of engaging in bias against LGBT individuals.

However even if the child is the biological child of an LGBT parent, there are potential difficulties. While there is substantial, legitimate, peer-studied research to indicate LGBT parents are every bit as effective and fit as other parents, they must face constant criticism and bigotry. However opponents have used faulty, distorted and outright fabricated research to make the claim that children raised by LGBT parents are at risk in various ways. Furthermore the biases of judges, social-service workers and others who make decisions about child custody can result in children being taken away from their LGBT parents based not on the actual fitness of the parent, but on their sexual orientation/gender identity.

 

Housing

 
GLBT individuals can legally be denied housing based on their sexual orientation/gender identity in most states. To date there are approximately thirteen states and numerous cities that ban housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and some include gender identity. However there is currently no federal law that does so. Therefore GLBT individuals do not have the same protections under the law in this area that other Americans currently do.

 
Employment

 
Thanks to President Bill Clinton, federal civilian LGBT employees enjoy protection from discrimination. But private-sector LGBTs are not so lucky. While twenty states, DC and 140 cities have banned discrimination against employees based on sexual orientation (some including gender identity) others still allow employers to fire, or refuse to hire, people for being LGBT. And, of course, even where anti-discrimination laws exist religious organizations and employers run by religious organizations are exempt from them.

ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, would ban discrimination against LGBT people on a nationwide basis. After numerous attempts it went through both the House and the Senate last Autumn, albeit without protections for Transgender individuals. It seems that the bigots couldn’t be convinced that they were worthy of such protections so they were dropped from the bill. It sits now in limbo, waiting for President Bush to sign or, more likely, to veto it.

Hate-Crimes Protection

 
32 states and DC have statutes that provide stronger penalties for those who engage in bias motivated crimes against people based on sexual orientation. 11 have protections for people based on gender identity. Only 16 are required, however, to collect statistics on these crimes, allowing for much valuable data to be lost.

Currently no federal legislation exists for prosecution or data collection of bias motivated crimes against LGBT people. In 2007 the Matthew Shepard Act, named for the young gay man brutally murdered in 1998, was introduced to Congress. The bill made it through the Senate, but not the House. LGBT people remain without federal hate-crimes protection and will do so indefinitely.

 

Military Service

 
On a personal level I have no interest in serving in the military. I detest the idea of killing anybody except as a last resort in self-defense. I abhor war and am a conscientious objector. Furthermore I can’t fathom why any LGBT person would put his or her life on the line to serve a country that can’t be bothered to give him/her the same rights and protections as all other citizens. Nonetheless I accept that there are indeed many LGBT individuals who wish to proudly serve in the military and are prevented from doing so by discriminatory legislation.

Previously the military simply banned gay/bisexual people from serving. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993 he had promised to allow gay people to serve openly. The resultant backlash from military leaders and the right-wing forced him to implement a compromise, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, more commonly known as DADT. Gays could ostensibly serve in the military as long as they didn’t disclose their orientation, and the military couldn’t ask. While meant as a compromise, the policy has since led to more problems than it solved as it became very much a witch-hunt.

Between 1994 and 2005 there were 11,082 service-members discharged under DADT at a cost of approximately $200 million to the United States. Myriad polls have shown that the public favors allowing gay people to serve openly. Nonetheless military leaders remain staunchly in favor of DADT and it has been upheld in federal court five times.

 
In Conclusion

 
Marriage, employment, housing, partner benefits, health care decisions, inheritance rights, our families, hate-crimes protection, military service and so much more. Far from being “one issue”, these far reaching issues affect every aspect of our lives, and some can even put our lives in the balance.

So please realize that we are never “one issue voters”, even if it appears that we are. Things are much more complex and substantial than they seem on the surface.

Addendum: A comment has arrived. Tyler says:

 

I rant, you articulate. Very well done.

Thank you very much, Tyler. Actually on my blogs I articulate. Elsewhere I’m much more prone to ranting. Thanks again for stopping by.

Most Americans have noticed that a presidential campaign is underway. All but one candidate is Christian, with the remaining candidate being a devout Mormon. We have been inundated with speeches and, dare I say, sermons from the candidates professing how deep and abiding their faith is. Particularly from the GOP side the candidates sound more like they’re running for preacher than president. Candidates visit churches frequently while on the campaign trail to stroke the egos of congregations and stump for votes.

Barack Obama, for example, has bent over backwards to woo Christian evangelicals to vote for him. Particularly in light of accusations that he is a Muslim owing to his middle name (Hussein) and Muslim lineage he has been hawking the fact that he is very much a Christian. The latest in his “Vote for me because I’m a really, really, really good Christian just like you are” campaign is this:

The brochure being handed out in South Carolina shows a picture of the candidate with his hands together and eyes closed. In large letters, it reads “ANSWERING THE CALL.”

Inside, voters learn of a candidate who was “CALLED TO CHRIST” and even larger letters is a “COMMITTED CHRISTIAN” and is quoted saying, “I believe in the power of prayer.”

Barack Obama’s campaign in South Carolina is targeting black voters, and one of the ways he’s doing it is appealing to a connection based on shared religious faith. Obama, a Christian who attends a United Church of Christ congregation in Chicago, has talked about his faith in Iowa and other states, as well, but his campaign literature is particularly focused on his religion here, where he depicts himself, in one picture, before a pulpit, and, in another, praying with an African American man.

Whoa. He sounds really super Christiany. I guess I’ll just have to vote for him.

Hillary Clinton does her share as well. In November she proudly announced that she had the backing of 60 pastors. Apparently the endorsements of clergy are better than laypersons because clergy would never do or say anything unethical, you know. Clinton also felt it necessary to advertise her church attendance. See, going to church is important, but other people knowing you go is critical. How else will they know you’re a Good Christian?

John Edwards, too, wants you to know how central his faith is to his life, and therefore how it will guide his presidency. He went on CBN in November to attest to his faithiness:

Edwards: Well, my faith is hugely important to every aspect of my life and it has been for a long time. I’m not going to lie to people. I was born and raised in the Southern Baptist church, baptized when I was young. I went to church on Sunday morning, Sunday night, Wednesday night. It was the center of our lives. My father was the deacon in the Baptist church.

…..

I lost my son 1996 — and then of course more recently Elizabeth’s development of cancer and recurrence of her cancer. The truth is I don’t know how I could have ever gotten through these struggles plus the day-to-day stresses of being a candidate for president without my relationship with the Lord. It’s hugely important in every part of my life

The GOP candidates are not only trying to out-Christian one another (even Romney), they’re making infinite promises as to how they’ll impose RRRW Christian morality on all of Amurka–whether the rest of us like it or not. Says Mittens:

I support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Marriage is fundamentally an institution about the development and nurturing of children. Every child deserves a mom and a dad. We must recognize the traditional union of a man and a woman as the bedrock of the family in our society. If our courts are determined to undermine this principle, then we have no choice but to defend it through a constitutional amendment.I support an amendment to prevent activist judges from misreading the Constitution to force same-sex marriage on any state.

I oppose civil unions between same sex partners. Government should encourage the formation of families and the nurturing of children, and I believe that this is best accomplished with a mom and a dad. Every child deserves a mother and a father.

Then there’s John McCain, who hits several of the right buttons–if you’re a RRRWer, that is.

Watching Beliefnet’s exclusive John McCain video, God-o-Meter finds it perplexing that the Arizona senator has long been a scourge of the Religious Right. After all, McCain told Beliefnet that the “Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation,” that he’s in talks with his pastor about undergoing a full-immersion baptism to become a full-blown evangelical, and that the prospect a Muslim presidential candidate makes him queasy because he wants someone who shares a “solid grounding in my faith.” That certainly checks some big boxes on the Christian Right’s presidential prerequisite list. (Not to mention that it offers a stark contrast to some of former Christian Right golden boy Fred Thompson’s recent stumbles on matters religious.)

Of course he’s small potatoes compared to Mike Huckabee, the Baptist Preacher turned Arkansas Governor turned presidential candidate.

“[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards,” Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Can you say Dominionist ? I knew you could!

So we have the candidates jumping through hoops, speechifying, sermonizing, wearing their belief on their sleeves and doing everything in their power to prove to the faithful that they’re the right believer for the job. But the job is the presidency of the United States, not pastor, reverend, priest or pope. So why is there so much emphasis on religion? What ever happened to “There shall be no religious test for public office”? And why do candidates not only spend so much time visiting churches, but feel compelled to, lest they “lose” the religious vote? Are religious people that needy and fragile. Do they really need that much pandering and ego-stroking? What is this insane need they have for people to tell them their beliefs are right, true and good? And why do politicians–particularly the GOPers–always have to promise the nation will be run according to the RRRW Christians rules to make them happy? Never mind; I already know the answer to those questions.

I’ll make it easy for you, candidates. You don’t need to give me flowery speeches or monologues about your faith. I don’t want to hear about your fabulous gay friend or the one who is the most ethical person you know–and she’s even an atheist. I don’t need to be validated by you nor do you need to be validated by me . I don’t want any form of song and dance. Save the pandering for the believers.

All I want for myself is equal human and civil rights. ENDA, Marriage Equality, the Hate Crimes Act. Enforce Separation of Church and State, “no religious test for public office” and equal-access laws. I don’t think that’s too much to ask. You’ll also save a lot of time, effort and money on the campaign trail.

Now what I want for everyone else–that’s going to take a bit more time, effort and money.