Nov 03 2008
Gay marriage and the First Amendment
I’m a huge fan of the First Amendment; I am a journalist after all. It protects us from ourselves and the founders of the United States were using their heads when they penned it into our constitution. For those who don’t know the amendment by heart, here it is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Los Angeles Times recently posted two op-ed pieces addressing the Prop. 8 controversy (in case you’ve been living under a rock, Prop. 8 would overturn the legalization of same-sex marriage in California). Dean R. Broyles argues that gay marriage and the first amendment are on a “collision course;” he is the president and chief counsel of the Western Center for Law and Policy, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the protection and promotion of religious freedom, parental rights and other civil liberties. He writes:
While legal protections for free speech and religious liberty have been a critical component of our nation’s core civil rights protections for more than 200 years, laws granting special rights to those engaged in homosexual conduct are the legal “new kid on the block” — and this new kid is proving to be an 800-pound gorilla. The danger here is that by embracing the latter (homosexual rights) with such vigor, we risk the grave consequences of decimating the former (the 1st Amendment). Perhaps this consequence is intended by the proponents of homosexual rights who oppose Proposition 8; perhaps not.
Regardless, the truth is that the conflict is very real. There will be clear winners and there will be clear losers in this zero-sum game. I submit that we should therefore be asking ourselves a more fundamental question: Which better serves the common good or general welfare of our nation — free speech and religious freedom or gay rights? I stand firmly with our infinitely wise founding fathers on the side of the 1st Amendment.
Lorri L. Jean makes a counter-point; she is an attorney and chief executive of the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center. She writes:
Proposition 8 would not have any impact at all on anyone’s free exercise of religion any more than allowing interracial marriage does. Back when the California Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws, opponents of interracial marriage predicted exactly the same dire consequences that you warn of today. None of them came true. …
I’ll give you this, Dean: We both agree that this conflict is very real. Indeed, this conflict is about whether our nation will live up to the wonderful principles on which we were founded: liberty and justice for all, not just for people who believe as you do, Dean, but for all. The real danger to religious freedom lies not in treating everyone equally under the law, but allowing any one religious belief to be imposed on everyone else. Thousands of religious leaders, churches and synagogues oppose Proposition 8 — and they would never do so if their own religious freedom was endangered.
Contrary to how you view the world, Dean, civil rights are not a “zero-sum game.” Our state is great enough to treat everyone fairly. When women won the right to vote, it didn’t hurt male voters. When the law required that public school sports programs for girls be treated fairly, it didn’t stop the boys from playing sports.
I’d have to agree with Jean; the founding fathers built this country on freedom from religious persecution. Many felt their religious beliefs were attacked - much like religious fanatics attack homosexuals presently. Slice it any way you like; it boils down to forcing everyone in the United States to legally hold the “belief” that homosexuality is an abomination. This is diametrically against the First Amendment.
