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

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