Unsafe Waters

The head of a think tank on marriage and family testified at the Proposition 8 federal trial today that same-sex marriage would weaken marriage and possibly lead to fewer heterosexual marriages, more divorces and "more public consideration of polygamy."

That's a snippet from the ongoing trial against Proposition 8, which defines marriage in California to be between a man and a woman.

But also on the same page of news, I found this.

Putting an end to two and a half years of litigation, the online dating site eHarmony.com has reached an agreement to pay a half a million dollars and make its website more “welcoming” to seekers of same-sex matches, settling a class-action lawsuit brought by gays and lesbians in California.

As part of the California agreement, the Compatible Partners site will display the eHarmony logo “in a prominent position,” and will state that the service is “brought to you by eHarmony.” The site currently states that it is “powered by eHarmony.”

I think this is why the same-sex marriage movement has so many opponents. Why should it matter that a private company - eHarmony - had as its original business plan the idea that it would help hetereosexual couples find one another. If gays felt that they were in need of the same services, then I would expect some gay entrepreneur to produce those services and be rewarded for his or her time and effort.

Reading this, I am struck once again that the same-sex movement is less about "rights" and more about "agenda." The definition of words become increasingly irrelevant and one area where I see that happening is between tolerance and acceptance. I do not have to accept as "normal" or "good" the homosexual lifestyle as part of being tolerant, but that is what is demanded - an utter embrace by my institutions or nothing at all.

Think it cannot happen with the Catholic Church? Look at cases that have been tried against California's Unruh Act. In Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004), the court held that Catholic Charities violated California law in refusing to provide a health insurance plan that covered contraceptives, as such were inimical to Catholic teaching.

And in North Coast Women’s Care Group, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008), physicians in San Diego were held to have violated the Unruh Act when they denied fertility treatment to a lesbian couple - except note that they personally denied the treatment to the couple but referred them to other doctors in their medical group who would have given them treatment. Not good enough. “A religious objector has no … constitutional right to an exemption from a neutral and valid law of general applicability on the ground that compliance with that law is contrary to the objector’s religious beliefs.”

Tolerance for differing viewpoints? I don't see it here.