Beliefnet
Lynn v. Sekulow

We obviously disagree fundamentally about the role of the courts in dealing with issues where fundamental rights (like marriage and equal protection) are at stake.  The “will” of the voters does not trump such rights and the courts exist to uphold them against just such a tyranny of the majority.

I’m also afraid, Jay, that in the big scheme of things, it is worse to construct a theological justification, or at least an apologia, for treating GLBT Americans as second class legal citizens than it is to interrupt a church service by showing up in pink underwear (which apparently occurred once in the past month). You know I don’t condone disruptive activity.  However, the breath exhausted on condemning this by the Religious Right would have been better expended doing almost anything else, perhaps even having the constructive dialogues many Christians apparently need to have on GLBT issues.

On the legal front, there is a completely legitimate call for an inquiry into whether churches that did expend resources, as they are entitled to do, on passing Proposition 8 accurately reported those expenditures under state law. The group Californians Against Hate has filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission which I believe is thoroughly appropriate, as does the New York Times.

Just like there needed to be a national effort against partisan politicking from the pulpit, perhaps there needs to be a parallel campaign demanding accountability and transparency on initiative funding. Treating all who get involved in these initiatives with the same scrutiny would not interfere with any legitimate “free exercise of religion” claim.  You can’t be against such equal treatement, can you?

Join the Discussion
comments powered by Disqus