A Stitch in Haste

The New York Times on a purported clash between religious bigotry and anti-discrimination laws:

"No one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them," [American Jewish Congress attorney Marc] Stern has written. But for other individuals and institutions opposed on religious grounds to same-sex marriage, its legal acceptance would have "substantial impact."

He has in mind schools, health care centers, social service agencies, summer camps, homeless shelters, nursing homes, orphanages, retreat houses, community centers, athletic programs and private businesses or services that operate by religious standards, like kosher caterers and marriage counselors.

One example, which he did not anticipate when first undertaking his analysis, was the Boston Catholic Charities' decision to withdraw from providing adoption services because the state license required placing children with gay married couples on the same basis as heterosexual married couples.

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

Here's the thing about "schools, health care centers, social service agencies, summer camps, homeless shelters, nursing homes, orphanages, retreat houses, community centers, athletic programs and private businesses" -- they're not churches! First Amendment freedom of religion simply does not apply. There is no such thing as "First Amendment separation of hospital and state" or "First Amendment separation of summer camps and state."

There may be perfectly good libertarian reasons to allow bigots to discriminate in the privacy of their own charitable and civic undertakings. There may even be other First Amendment prongs (i.e., freedom of association) that guarantee them the right to do so.

But these religiously sponsored, yet non-church, institutions and the clerics who exercise command-and-control authority over them are hardly libertarian and should not be allowed to disingenuously borrow and cherry-pick libertarian principles only when it suits them.

The single best illustration of this hypocritical posturing, as I've hinted at previously, is the use (and abuse) of charitable tax exemption. A tax break is a government subsidy no different in principle than a welfare check. Religious leaders don't just want to discriminate; they want to discriminate with the blessing of the IRS.

Remind me again who relentlessly insisted that government subsidization can come with strings attached? Oh right, these very same religious types, during the whole Rumsfeld v. FAIR debacle. Carte blanche, "have your cake and eat it too" government funding and tax breaks for me but not for thee? How is that in any way a principled "religious" conviction?

Say what you want about Bob Jones University, but after they lost in court, they stuck to their principles (as neanderthal as they happen to be). They chose racism over tax exemption. Pathetic and contemptible, yes -- but also consistent and unhypocritical.

And let's keep in mind, as an example, what really happened with Catholic Charities in Massachusetts. The organization itself had no problem with placing children with gay couples. They were shut down, involuntarily, by Massachusetts' bishops. This supposed "conflict" of dogma versus nondiscrimination more often than not has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the dedicated people in the trenches of these hospitals, orphanages and summer camps -- most of whom are not bigots and are often not even members of the religion sponsoring the institution. The "crisis" is strictly top-down histrionics -- the clergy are the ones who care about defending their "religious principles" (as neanderthal as they happen to be) and are the ones engaging in civic brinkmanship over this issue. The doctors, nurses, social workers and camp counselors generally couldn't care less. They just want to do good deeds.

Separation of church and state is a wonderful thing. Which is exactly why it shouldn't be diluted by flimsy reasoning and apocalyptic threats. The clergy should stay in their pulpits and leave humanitarianism to real humanitarians.