Tuesday Watercooler: Supreme Court divided on discrimination

[1]

This morning’s discussion in the Supreme Court kinda scares me … a lot. The case, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, is a fight over the right to discriminate, and, of course, money.

“Hastings College of Law, which is part of the University of California, has a general policy barring student groups that receive official recognition and university funding from discriminating,” the American Civil Liberties Union [2] explains. “The Christian Legal Society is a student club that requires its members to sign a Statement of Faith that, among other things, rejects homosexuality as inconsistent with Christian values. CLS is ineligible for official recognition and university funding at Hastings because of its membership requirement, although it is otherwise free to meet on campus.”

Essentially, no gays equals no money. That math seems simple, right?

Now, here’s the scary, though somewhat ironic, part: The right-leaning justices seem to think this is discrimination.

“It is so weird to require the campus Republican club to admit Democrats,” Justice Antonin Scalia said, The Republic reported [3]. “To require the Christian society to allow atheists not just to join, but to conduct Bible classes, that’s crazy.”

Let’s break this down: Essentially, it’s discrimination not to allow a group to discriminate. Um, WTF?

Thankfully Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor inserted some logic into the discussion citing what would happen if women and minorities were banned.

“What is wrong with the purpose of a school to say, ‘We don’t wish (to recognize) any group that discriminates?’ ” Sotomayor asked.
***
[4]
While the current justices battle it out over discrimination, a separate battle looms for potential Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.
The big question seems to be about her sexuality. Is she gay? Well, around the Harvard campus, that appears to be an open secret. It’s not hard to find sites calling her a lesbian [5].
But whether she is gay or straight should not be the issue. If she is gay, she is making a huge effort to keep it quiet – an Internet finds her personal life is strictly under wraps. What is at issue is her stance. Her lack of actual judicial experience leaves little written record of her opinions.
If she is in fact nominated, as can be inferred from the over-the-top “She’s not gay” denials emanating from the White House, much will be made of her anti-Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell stance. Shortly after taking over as dean at Harvard, Kagan shot an e-mail to students over having military recruiters on campus.
“This action causes me deep distress. I abhor the military’s discriminatory recruitment policy,” Kagan wrote. She called DADT “a profound wrong — a moral injustice of the first order.”
She is standing up for the LGBT community and has done so in the past. If she wants to hide in the closet, fine by me. But if that closet starts impeding a potential justice’s judgment, I’ll be the first in line to out her.
***
[6]
Speaking of standing up for rights, New York City’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center refuses to be intimidated after staff discovered a torched rainbow flag last wee [7]k.
“The act of hate demonstrated outside the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center in the Village is unacceptable,” Christin Quinn said in a statement. “I was angered and deeply disturbed when I heard someone would go to such great lengths to burn a rainbow flag and pin it to the outside of the building.”
In response, the Center plans to unfurl a new 20-foot flag on Wednesday that will drape the building.

“We invite our straight allies to stand with us to demonstrate that LGBT safety and rights are not just an issue for LGBT people. Our city is strong and we need to come together to show that we cannot be intimidated,” the Center said in a message posted on their website.
***
[8]
And in another example of standing up for rainbow rights, the Tennessee teen who was reprimanded [9] for wearing an “I (heart) Lady Gay Gay” T-shirt, with the help of the ACLU, convinced school officials the T-shirt was acceptable.
The ACLU told The Chattanoogan [10] they have assurances from the school it will not censor gay fashion.
“Students not only have a First Amendment right to be out at school, but the right to an education free from discrimination and harassment,” Tricia Herzfeld, ACLU of Tennessee staff attorney, told the newspaper. “We applaud the school for recognizing this and taking steps to ensure that they are providing a safe and equal learning environment for all students.”
I (heart) teens who stand up for fashion.

[1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-supreme-court-top.jpg
[2] http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights-religion-belief/christian-legal-society-v-martinez
[3] http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/RELIG-SCOTUS-STUDENTGROUP_2173652/RELIG-SCOTUS-STUDENTGROUP_2173652/
[4] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-kagan-gay-top.jpg
[5] http://www.epinions.com/review/educ-Law_Schools-All-Harvard_University_Law/content_219010666116
[6] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-torched-flag-top.jpg
[7] http://www.gaycenter.org/torchedflag
[8] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-gaga-tshirt-top.jpg
[9] http://www.wsmv.com/video/23072689/
[10] http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_173769.asp

Homosexuality immoral, but not criminal: Religious leaders

In the first flurry of reactions, religious leaders appeared to be slamming the de-criminalization of gay sex. But while most conservative scholars and clerics remain opposed to homosexuality as an article of faith, many say that they aren’t advocating making it a criminal act as Section 377 of IPC did.

Writer and philosopher Deepak Chopra told TOI from his home in New York, ‘‘A new morality must evolve that is based on a true understanding of human nature, that is also consistent with its biology. Homosexuality has been part of the human condition for as long as human beings have existed. The Delhi High Court should be congratulated for making a decision that finally catches up with our times.’’

Then, while Delhi Catholic Archdiocese has described homosexuality as ‘‘unnatural’’, it says it has nothing against its de-criminalization. Spokesperson of Delhi Catholic Archdiocese, Father Dominic Emmanuel, told TOI,‘‘Homosexuality is a sin — as opposed to a crime. But we believe that those who indulge in it should be treated with respect and compassion.’’

In a newspaper article, Father Dominic was even more forthright. ‘‘It needs to be made clear that the Christian community does not (repeat it does not) treat people with homosexual tendencies as criminals. Nor does it believe that they can be regarded on par with criminals. Therefore, the church has no serious objection to the repealing of Section 377.

‘‘The Vatican’s stand on this is quite clear: Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided’,’’ wrote Father Dominic.

Similarly, some Muslim clerics and scholars, too, favour de-criminalization of homosexuality, saying that while Islam does not permit homosexuality, this doesn’t mean it should be equated with criminality.

‘‘The Quran condemns homosexuality, but doesn’t prescribe any punishment for it. It’s a sin, not a crime. Sin is between Allah and the sinner, but crime concerns the entire society. So, sexual minorities should be left to their conscience. They are answerable to Allah for their act and should not be treated as criminals,’’ said Islamic scholar Asghar Ali Engineer.

Maulana Abu Zafar Hassan Nadvi, a cleric, too accepts that since the Quran is silent on the punishment for homosexuality, it should be treated as an irreligious, immoral act. ‘‘Every non-religious act is not liable to be punished. Just as we don’t pronounce death for atheists, homosexuals should be left alone until they get reformed,” said Maulana Nadvi. See Homosexuality immoral, but not criminal: Religious leaders

Times of India

* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/homosexuality…

The impact of ‘Christian’ homophobia: New Research Reveals Young Americans Losing Their Religion In Staggering Numbers

New research shows young Americans are dramatically less likely to go to church — or to participate in any form of organized religion — than their parents and grandparents.

“It’s a huge change,” says Harvard University professor Robert Putnam, who conducted the research.

Historically, the percentage of Americans who said they had no religious affiliation (pollsters refer to this group as the “nones”) has been very small — hovering between 5 percent and 10 percent. However, Putnam says the percentage of “nones” has now skyrocketed to between 30 percent and 40 percent among younger Americans.

Putnam calls this a “stunning development.” He gave reporters a first glimpse of his data Tuesday at a conference on religion organized by the Pew Forum on Faith in Public Life.

The research will be included in a forthcoming book, called “American Grace.”

This trend started in the 1990s and continues through today. It includes people in both Generation X and Y.

While these young “nones” may not belong to a church, they are not necessarily atheists.

“Many of them are people who would otherwise be in church,” Putnam said. “They have the same attitidues and values as people who are in church, but they grew up in a period in which being religious meant being politically conservative, especially on social issues.”

Putnam says that in the past two decades, many young people began to view organized religion as a source of “intolerance and rigidity and doctrinaire political views,” and therefore stopped going to church.

This movement away from organized religion, says Putnam, may have enormous consequences for American culture and politics for years to come.

“That is the future of America,” he says. “Their views and their habits religiously are going to persist and have a huge effect on the future.”

See New Research Reveals Young Americans Losing Their Religion In Staggering Numbers