A New Jersey church group is suing the state over whether the organization should be required to allow a lesbian couple to hold a civil-union ceremony at a beachfront pavilion owned by the group.
The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist group, says its rights are being violated by a state investigation into its decision to reject the couple’s application. The group said it rejected the application because the church does not recognize same-sex unions.
Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster of Ocean Grove filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights, saying the rejection was a violation of the state’s law against discrimination. In the lawsuit, filed yesterday, the organization said that if the group were to allow civil-union ceremonies for same-sex couples to take place, it would constitute approval of such unions.
And so it begins.
Push, push, push….
(Would someone be so kind as to tell me how to do Smileys?)
click on the red ‘smileys’ word above the comment typing area.
Now, what about all that talk that ‘churches and religious organizations would be exempt’ from these regulations? More smoke and mirrors, I guess.
Jim
Br. Michael,
Did we ever have a doubt about something like this. 🙂
“..wide is the road that leadeth to destruction and many that perish therein..”
Here we go. Ocean Grove has a long history as a camp meeting site for Methodists. Now we have a lesbian couple trying to force change on this religious organization through the legal system of the state. Why should any of us be surprised? This couple could find some pavilion in neighboring Asbury Park or any number of other beach communities in NJ. We know what this is about: this is about political correctness and the continuing pushing of the boundaries by gay activists. The drive is to eliminate all boundaries on the basis of their moral code and to eliminate in the process all other moral codes.
Brings to mind the Aesop fable “The Dog in the Manger.” Anybody remember that one?
Liberal Bishops won’t have to “force” orthodox parishes to let same sex blessings occur….the state will do it for them…..I know several TEC members who figure it won’t happen in their parish……we shall see………state by state decisions all the way up to U.S. Supreme Court on this one….quoting # 1 “and so it begins”
Fret not, folks: we do have the First Amendment, after all. This isn’t Britain. This is so clearly a moral (religious) issue that I can’t imagine most state high courts–even the most liberal–not recognizing that there is a free exercise issue here, and perhaps also an establishment issue (the state prescribing a certain religious belief in this context). And the slippery slope is not one that ultimately serves the liberals well in the long fun. I predict nothing will come of this investigation at all, and the suit will end up not stating a cause of action.
#3 Jim, Thanks but I thought I had tried that. I click on it, but nothing happens. I use control C and copy it and then I just get the html. Oh, well.
Shirley, clicking on the smiley doesn’t work for me either. 🙁 I just know a couple of smiley strokes. 🙂
To make these I use a colon, dash, and one of the ()
So much of this seems like it is meant to afflict people with traditional views rather than to establish some kind of equality. I often wonder if very many LGTB’s really want to marry just on the basis of that. Or are they making a statement to afflict. If so, why then are we seen as the enemy? Because of conservative political views? Because we are thought of as ‘holier than thou’? Anyway I feel the sting of a stereotyping as well as the heavy hand of a state government with an agenda and deep pockets. Sort of like a tax-based 815.
This suit has no chance of succeeding unless the state intervenes and convinces a court that the Ocean Grove facility is not a church or religious organization but a public accommodation. That’s a stretch, but the NJ Supreme Court is one of the most liberal in the country (I was very surprised when they didn’t legalize gay marriage), so anything is possible. If NJ intervenes, I expect this will eventually wind up in the US Supreme Court, and will be a major case for determining whether gay rights or First Amendment freedom gets legal priority.
David (#13): the suit was by the church group to stop the state investigation, not by the lesbians. So there’s not a question of state intervention: the state is a party already. If there is even a proper cause of action stated, the issue in this suit will pertain to church’s right not to be investigated, not a dispositive adjudication of the underlying Constitutional issue. I suspect the lesbians went this administrative route instead of bringing a suit of their own because some smart lawyer told them a suit was a very expensive endeavor bound to come to naught. It costs them little to make a complaint before a state agency, on the other hand. And if they lose–and they should–they’ll not be out the money.
VaAnglican: Using administrative agencies to force this sort of stuff through was the primary method used up in Canada. There provincially created human rights tribunals began to enforce the homosexual agenda, and it was a very easy ride for the activists. I hope that the US Supreme Court would put an end to this, but it might become a situation in which harassment and intimidation are used (the religious group might be constantly forced to appeal to the federal courts).
This will be the way that gay marriage will be forced on all clergy – certainly in Canada, and it will be tried in the US also. Basically, those of you who think “but we always have the right not to marry people” are naive. If you married everyone but always said no to African-American couples, you could probably be charged with discrimination because the obvious pattern is there. If a minister constantly and openly stated that s/he would not “marry” two members of the same sex, the test for the courts would become one of which freedom ranks higher – sexuality or religion. Can you discriminate against homosexuals on religious grounds? The Canadian courts have come down firmly in favor of sex trumps religion and the results are entirely predictable when such a challenge is made (probably not for a couple years). In the US, the liberals will push for that also, so this question will probably be answered by who will be able to stack the US Supreme Court.
RE #14
You’re right, and I bollixed that up. The lesbians did bring an administrative action, and the suit is by Ocean Grove against the state. But once the admin ruling comes down, if it goes against the facility, won’t the substantive issue–not just the question of Ocean Grove’s right to be free from investigation, but whether the state can force them to accommodate the lesbians–likely wind up in court? And at that point wouldn’t the constitutional issues come to the fore?
This issue reminds me, one of my children and I were discussing same sex marriage. I’m constantly amazed how many children are coming out at 12, 13, 14, 15 and telling all their friends that they are gay. So she has been dealing with this phenomenon since 8th grade in her various friends. So she asks me a simple question like, “Why?” And I, without trying to back down from the issues, explain to her that there are a variety of answers to that question, depending on who you ask. And I explain society’s position on the issue, the Christian viewpoint (separating sin from sinner), and why I am against TEC sanctioning such relationships. Then we talk about how as of yet, no conclusive, repeatable evidence that there is a physiological reason for sexual preference.
Then she looks me in the eye and says, “That’s really a shame.”
“Why?”
“Because if there was a reason they could see on an xray, some smart scientist could cure it.”
Now she’s got me thinking if the cure was available, who would take it and who wouldn’t? And is calling it a “cure” offensive, since it implies a problem? And (since I work for a major health insurance carrier) would health insurance pay for the cure? ARGGH!! Why do my children have to deal with this crap? Well, at least she knows where I stand.
My goodness. Out of the mouths of babes….
KTF….mrb
Don’t forget the Boy Scouts who won their First Amendment claim on their right to refuse to apoint homosexual leaders only to have their win eviscerated by means of local non-discrimination statutes. The First Amendment is by no means sure fire protection.
Elves, this is sort of off thread but I hope you will let it pass.
See Mike’s above. As a sign of a culture gone off on a Blue Jaunt, see todays NY Times, “Forced to pick a major in high school” and Fort lauderdale journal: A mayor stands by his comments and gay advocates stand against him.” I sent these references on to Kendall but I don’t know whether he will pst them.
Oh, ladies and gentlemen, read it and weep. What IS the matter with public schools? Don’t they ever learn anything? And shall we go visit Fort Lauderdale? It looks as if Ft. L has become a California bathhouse with a vengence. Do you suppose a homosexual controlled town can vote to make itself a mecca for homosexuality? TEC should be big there! Larry
Incidentally, Mike and all, let’s suppose some homosexuality is genetic and a cure can be found. Now let’s look at it from the other side. If genetic manipulation is possible, would we allow homosexuals to make more of then in utero? Larry
Come to think of it, Mike, are you telling us that you are seeing young kids come out as homosexuals because it is fashionable to do so? Are you saying that? Larry
I hate to make generalizations about that, but when I have had the opportunity to pin them down on things like lifestyle, actual sexual preferences, and attractions, and what their parents think, it almost seems more of a teenage rebillion than anything. It’s like “coming out” for them has become the new Beatles, long hair, smoking dope, or whatever else will anger their parents.
Hollywood has suceeded. I call it the “Will and Grace” effect. Homosexuality to them is sort of hip and cool and right up there with tatoos and body piercing as a way to express their individuality. Interestingly enough, even the straight guys who want to participate in that crowd will say they are “bi”. I asked one if that meant he would actually have sex with a boy when the time comes, and since we were alone he made a face like he had smelled something stinky. Peer pressure pushes kids in strange ways I guess.
I am optimistic, though, that these phases will pass. “Cool”, as we all have experienced, is an evolving concept.
I am more concerned for the ones who are serious but unhappy about their attractions. Will the only option we give them be “Hey, don’t worry, what you’re feeling is perfectly normal and nothing to be ashamed of. Go with it. Your lifestyle is as perfectly valid as anybody’s, don’t let them tell you it’s dysfunctional or unusual.”
I know how politically un-correct that sounds, but as Christians, these kids deserve to hear options from us, not bland acceptance. We’ve all seen the research, especially on females, at how many change their preferences over the course of their life. Will those preferences change if we never offer alternatives or acknowledge that change is possible?
Funny how your kids start you solidifying that which you have taken for granted in the past.
KTF!….mrb
VaAnglican [#9 & 14] has it right: the couple’s claim should and almost certainly will founder on the church’s First Amendment to the free exercise of religion.
But the couple’s complain does serve as a reminder of how little respect some activists have for faith-based scruples. I hope someone is compiling a list of successful and unsuccessful attempts to force Christians to carry out a gay rights agenda they believe contrary to scripture. The list would be useful the next time we’re told there is really no need for an explicit conscience clause.
I suppose the great irony is that freedom of religion is supposed to be protected legally and Constitutionally as a primary right. What is happening, as in TEC, is an attempt, of course, to make Christians bow down to a false god.
Mike’s remarks above are important because they are a countervailing force against the common argument (heard everywhere in Mass) that the acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual marriage is not big deal, that the issue has disappeared into normality with scarcely a ripple.
But when such a important matter ( and it IS a vital matter for young males prior to puberty) has become a fashion statement, then the Mass is clearly dead wrong about the issue having no important effects.
The latency period is often a matter of agony for boys because their notion of what a male is, is very much in question. Such males – and I was one and others of you may also have been there – fret and agonize over whether one is REALLY attracted to X over there. Boys here really need help in establishing a male identity. In the past, the Boy Scouts was an excellent source of help. The DID what was MALE, by definition. I wonder if the scouts are still so useful.Buy encouraging them to think for reasons of vanity and belonging of themselves being homosexuals, the culture has suborned and traduced this latency period – has betrayed them indeed. LM