Discriminating Against 'Sin' Gene Ward Smith wrote a version of Colorado's Amendment 2 whi

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Discriminating Against "Sin" Gene Ward Smith wrote a version of Colorado's Amendment 2 which was about Jews instead of homosexuals. As may have been expected, this caused a lot of followups. Many who reject the validity of the parallel have gotten hung up on that particular point. I offer my own variation: NO PROTECTED STATUS BASED ON DISSOLVED MARRIAGES "Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby a dissolved marriage shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing." This isn't perfect, but it's also not hypothetical. In Ireland, it is illegal to get a divorce; if you are divorced and then remarry, you are guilty of the crime of bigamy, and may face incarceration. You probably couldn't go so far in the US, but there are several religions (Roman Catholicism being the biggest) which do not accept divorce. If a large number of people against divorce lived in a given state, they could in theory pass a law like the one mentioned above. So, for example, someone who was fired right after a second marriage could not sue for discrimination. In the case of Ireland's law against divorce, and suggested laws against homosexuality (or laws allowing homosexuals to be fired with no other cause), it seems to me that it's a matter of saying that employers/landlords/the majority of the population/ should have the right to impose their sexual ethics and ideas about `family' on everybody else. Unless one is willing to let people against divorce impose their own religious ideas on everybody else, then it is inconsistent to support letting anti-gay people impose THEIR religious ideas on everybody else. This example is only semi-hypothetical. What's more, I know people in second marriages who are stoutly in favor of outlawing any kind of homosexuality; but who would be apoplectic if divorce rules were imposed on them in the same way that they want to impose homosexual rules. Also, note that the opposition to divorce is not a matter of minority sects. Roman Catholicism is far and away the largest Christian denomination in the world, and officially does not accept divorce. Catholics in Ireland exist in sufficient numbers that divorce is illegal. If one accepts that an employer should not have to hire homosexuals, it seems to me that one must permit employers to turn away remarried people too (since some employers will see the second marriage as invalid, and the couple as engaging in the sexual sin of adultery). But there aren't a lot of people who support such discrimination. If anyone who believes RCs should have to hire people they consider as committing sexual sin, but that those same RCs should be allowed to turn away homosexuals, I would be fascinated to read your explanation of the difference in kind. Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu ----------------------------------------- "You gave your life to become the person you are right now. Was it worth it?" -- Richard Bach


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank