Vincent Carroll of the Denver Post came out with an excellent opinion piece today about the need to include conscience protections in the proposed civil unions bill. Notable is the fact that Carroll has supported civil unions for 10 years, long before there was a chance of them passing in Colorado. He sees no threat from including conscience protections in the civil unions bill, and takes bill sponsor Senator Steadman to task for very inflammatory language regarding those organizations standing on religious principle.
The full piece can be found at the Denver Post by CLICKING HERE. Please read his very reasonable comments.
Some key quotes:
And so we witnessed last week the spectacle of the Colorado Senate passing a civil unions bill while refusing to include a serious religious exemption to protect freedom of conscience. Senate Bill 11 exempts only a “priest, minister, rabbi or other official of a religious institution” from having to certify a civil union — as if this were even necessary. There isn’t a court in the land that would allow this state to define a religious sacrament, and the bill’s sponsors know it.
Meanwhile, left in legal jeopardy are organizations of even explicitly religious orientation such as Catholic Charities and other ministries involved in social services. Last year, the bill’s sponsors were willing to shield such groups with an exemption, but that was when they were clawing for votes. Now that victory is assured, such civilized tolerance has gone by the boards.
On Senator Steadman’s shocking comments regarding religious organizations:
To defenders of traditional marriage, however, Steadman had stern words. “So, what to say to those who say religion requires them to discriminate. I’ll tell you what I’d say. Get thee to a nunnery and live there then. Go live a monastic life away from modern society, away from people you can’t see as equal to yourself, away from the stream of commerce where you may have to serve them.”
In a single outburst, Steadman thus confirmed the worst fears of orthodox believers — that militant secularists are intent on punishing any belief or behavior that conflicts with gay-rights goals.
Vincent Carroll finishes his thoughts by summing up the issues nicely:
We heard a great deal Friday about religious intolerance, with historically muddled references to the Spanish Inquisition, Taliban, Holocaust, and slavery (nothing about how the anti-slavery movement was galvanized by religious sentiment, of course, but never mind). “Some very awkward things” have been done in the name of religion, one senator reminded us.
Yes, indeed. And some very awkward things have been done in the name of government, too. Yet what does either have to do, here and now, with the question of whether a mother can freely take her infant to a private agency that will find an adoptive family that reflects the values she ardently desires?
Let’s hope that more civil minds prevail as the civil unions bill winds it way through the Colorado State House.
