Teacher Opposed to Gay Marriage Could be Fired

C_ace,

Why do I as a Christian have to worry about someone else's sin and forgiveness?

I believe there are plenty of examples in the bible where folks can be forgiven for anything at any time. Several from Jesus himself.

In fact, he makes the point that God especially cherishes bringing home the prodigal sons.

 

I believe very strongly in the belief that one can be forgiven for anything at any time -- and that there is no "point value" on sins. Sin is sin, and forgiveness is forgiveness, and that forgiveness is available to all. But I was also raised to believe that, once forgiven, one should attempt to refrain from knowingly committing that sin in the future (but if it happens, there is more forgiveness available).

It's the endorsement of sin that is the problem, whether legal or within the church. Where a lot of evangelicals are scared of gay marriage is that it could be used as a cudgel to force them to accept homosexuality -- tax exemptions withheld for churches who refuse to perform gay weddings, photographers who refuse to shoot them being sued on equal rights statutes, et al. The eHarmony suit -- where New Jersey forced the company to add a "men seeking men" and "women seeking women" section based on its anti-discrimination statutes -- has rung very, very deeply in the evangelical community, as has the targeting of Chick-Fil-A because one local franchise donated food to a marriage conference. That Massachusetts has pulled funding from Catholic adoption agencies because they will only adopt to married heterosexual couples. Those are *big* issues in the evangelical community. In each, it's the case of a company founded on those values that now are being either forced to go against the religious principles on which they were founded legally or having to face societal heckling as a result.

To me, I could care less. I'd rather see the state not sanction marriage and leave it up to the individual church/couple to determine what constitutes marriage, with the state only sanctioning the relationship as a contractual one (which is, in a legal sense, all marriage is), not as a marriage. If some strains of Mormonism want to endorse polygamy, then the state shouldn't have to step in and ban it. If gay couples want to form a union and have a church recognize it, that's fine. If a hetero couple has a similar union, also fine. The state should only assent to the contract between the adults for the sharing of property. But by not providing its endorsement to human relationships, that would also keep the state from tacitly being able to punish those who don't endorse such relationships with anti-discrimination laws.

 

Some good points, redace.

 

I'd feel a lot worse for the religious right's fear of losing rights if they weren't the ones intent on starting a culture war of restricted rights to begin with.

Though that doesn't mean I won't advocate for their rights, too.

 

From the religious right perspective, they're not starting the culture war, they're responding to the one that began in the 1960s when the traditional society went through a pretty dramatic upheaval with the hippie movement, the Free/Filthy Speech Movements, et al, and then through the 1970s with Roe v. Wade, the self-actualization culture, the drug/free sex culture, the meteoric rise in divorce rates, feminism ... to evangelicals, those events *started* the culture war. They're just trying to provide some resistance to the rock rolling downhill.

They're trying to preserve traditional society and not be forced to accept behaviors that they believe to be an anathema -- whether it be to God or to society. The term that's often used is "moral inversion" -- what was once seen as perverse is now mainstream, and what was once seen as mainstream and normal is now perverse. David Limbaugh (Rush's lawyer brother, and a conservative columnist) wrote a book on the concept of moral inversion a few years back.

Not endorsing the viewpoint, just pointing out what I hear a lot -- I run in evangelical circles. I'm an evangelical, but a political libertarian, so my attitude is basically whatever you do on your own time is cool, just don't ask me to embrace it, endorse it or financially support it and I won't ask you to embrace, endorse or financially support my personal convictions and activities.

 

I also think, if this teacher was fired, this could end up being a form of prior restraint because it would be clear: you take a public stance against gay marriage that some could deem "hateful" there is a good chance you will lose your job.

 

How about this -- no matter what job you are in, if you make a public statement that brings to question how well-suited you are for your job, you could get fired.

If you were a political reporter and tweeted that the candidate for governor is an idiot, you could get fired.

If you are a dog groomer and tweet that you think poodles are really a dumb, dirty breed of dog, you could get fired.

If you are a CEO of a fast food company and you tweet that only suckers would buy crap that sits under a heat lamp for hours, you could get fired.

This is a new world. You put your ignorant, mean or unwise thoughts out there and they could hurt you.

 

A society that encourages free expression should find that sort of policy distasteful. Especially when the statement in question is political.

 

Was this speech 'political?'

Was it 'ideological?'

Was it 'religious?'

Asking.

 

All of the above, and all worthy of protection.

 

Who defines what is "ignorant, mean or unwise?" I think that is kind of the point being made here. A college kid wearing a jacket that says "Fuck the draft" is protected, but a teacher posting something on their personal Facebook page, on their own time using their own equipment, is not?

 

What about adoption?