Same-sex Marriage

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Plug-In: Religious liberty vs. gay rights -- LGBTQ debates escalate around the world

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Plug-In: Religious liberty vs. gay rights -- LGBTQ debates escalate around the world

The latest clash of religious liberty versus gay rights at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Friction over LGBTQ issues in traditional faiths around the world, from the global Anglican Communion to the vast Muslim world.

Final congressional passage of a bill to protect same-sex marriage rights.

No doubt, there’s a common theme to some of this past week’s top headlines.

At The Associated Press, Jessica Gresko and Mark Sherman report:

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority sounded sympathetic Monday to a Christian graphic artist who objects to designing wedding websites for gay couples, the latest collision of religion and gay rights to land at the high court.

The designer and her supporters say that ruling against her would force artists — from painters and photographers to writers and musicians — to do work that is against their beliefs. Her opponents, meanwhile, say that if she wins, a range of businesses will be able to discriminate, refusing to serve Black, Jewish or Muslim customers, interracial or interfaith couples or immigrants.

Meanwhile, AP’s global religion team partners with its Lilly Endowment grant partners — Religion News Service and The Conversation — to examine LGBTQ belief and belonging around the world.

Among the specific stories:

• Friction over LGBTQ issues worsens in global Anglican church (by AP’s Chinedu Asadu and David Crary and RNS’ Catherine Pepinster)

• Across vast Muslim world, LGBTQ people remain marginalized (by AP’s Edna Tarigan, Mariam Fam and David Crary)

• LGBTQ students wrestle with tensions at Christian colleges (by AP’s Giovanna Dell’Orto and RNS’ Yonat Shimron)


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

News coverage of LGBTQ issues enters mop-up phase in the religion marketplace

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
News coverage of LGBTQ issues enters mop-up phase in the religion marketplace

It has been a big week for the ongoing LGBTQ+ story. Even as the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case about how much to tolerate personal dissent against same-sex marriage, the U.S. House, the House this morning passed nationwide codification of the gay marriage right that the Court enacted by 5-4 in the 2015 Obergefell ruling.

The new law effectively concludes phase one in the unusually rapid upending of a central societal structure dating from antiquity. The next few years, the media will be covering the mop-up phase facing religious groups and individuals that uphold traditional teachings about marriage, over against anti-discrimination assertions by government, Hollywood, corporate America and private actors.

The current Supreme Court case (303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, docket #21-476) involves a Colorado website designer who does not create pages that celebrate same-sex weddings — though she serves gay customers otherwise. Her free-speech claim is opposed by, for example, Reform Judaism, many liberal Protestants and other social liberals.

Observers figure that the Court, with a more traditionalist makeup than in 2015, will back this designer’s plea and ultimately look kindly upon further religious claims under the Bill of Rights. If so, the future conflict may focus on the Carborundum tactic as the LGBTQ+ movement grinds down conservatives’ energy, time and money in long-running legal maneuvers, meanwhile building cultural pressure to marginalize conscientious objectors as simple bigots.

An opinion-page complaint against religion’s “encroachment” upon society, posted by NBC News and written by Stanford University journal editor Marcie Bianco, neatly encapsulates where this culture war appears to be heading. This is the voice from the cultural left:

Dig a bit deeper, and what this act really represents is the inflexibility of our nation’s institutions and the national entrenchment — despite constitutional assurances to the contrary — of religion.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Christian web designer at the Supreme Court: How reporters covered 303 Creative case

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Christian web designer at the Supreme Court: How reporters covered 303 Creative case

On the face of it, 303 Creative v. Elenis, a case heard before the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, sounded unimpressive.

A Christian web designer living near Denver was suing her state civil rights commission for the right to create wedding web sites without having to include creative content about same-sex weddings in the mix. She hadn’t been approached by any gay couples yet — but because she might be, she launched a pre-emptive lawsuit with the aid of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm with an impressive track record of 11 wins at the Supreme Court level.

Yet, the more I read about the case and the issues it was trying to raise, the more intrigued I got. And the hearing on Monday didn’t disappoint. It lasted some two and one-half hours, which is long by Court standards. Covering hour-long hearings at the high court is difficult at best; I can only imagine how tough it was for reporters to sift through 150 minutes of speech — and all the tangents that were involved — to sum up how the hearing went.

Which is why I am merely critiquing the first drafts of what I hope will be more in-depth articles as time goes on. I’ll start with how CBS covered the story:

The Supreme Court's conservative bloc appeared sympathetic Monday to a Colorado graphic designer who argues a state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates her free speech rights by forcing her to express a message that conflicts with her closely held religious beliefs.

During oral arguments in the case known as 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the court seemed to move closer to resolving a question it has left unanswered since 2018, when it narrowly ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding: whether states like Colorado can, in applying their anti-discrimination laws, compel an artist to express a message they disagree with.

An editorial comment: It's a minor annoyance that the plural “they” is used for a singular “artist.” Just write “he or she” for heaven’s sake.

One issue with reporting on this case is that it takes a ton of backstory to explain that this case isn’t just about a web designer, but also a cake designer-baker in a previous Supreme Court case.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: Is Colorado Springs covered by a 'fundamentalist' blanket of hate?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Is Colorado Springs covered by a 'fundamentalist' blanket of hate?

At this point, there are many, many crucial facts that journalists do not know about the horrible Club Q massacre in Colorado Springs.

This lack of facts has done little to shape the coverage. We do not, for example, know if Mx. Anderson Aldrich is sincere when claiming, in case documents, to be nonbinary. It will, in the meantime, be interesting to see if many mainstream newsrooms choose to deadname Aldrich in their coverage, perhaps by striving to avoid pronouns altogether.

We do know that the alleged shooter was raised in a broken home with multiple mental-health and violence issues. Consider, for example, the father — an ex-con MMA fighter turned porn star (and a Republican, of one form or another).

At this point, it does appear that some journalists — while searching for the “why” in the “who, what, when, where, why and how” formula — have decided to place the city of Colorado Springs on trial and, perhaps, the whole state of Colorado. This was the primary topic discussed in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

The key: A return of that dreaded journalism F-word — “fundamentalist.” For more background on this religion-beat disease, please see this GetReligion post by Richard Ostling (“What is 'Fundamentalism'? Name 666 or so examples from recent news coverage”) and this On Religion column (“Define ‘fundamentalist,’ please”) that I wrote in 2011.

Here is the key material from a USA Today story that, in my opinion, goes completely over the top while claiming that, to be blunt, a kind of hate cloud covers Colorado Springs. The headline: “Colorado Springs worked to change its anti-gay image — then its sole LGBTQ nightclub was targeted.”

Most notably, in 1992, religious fundamentalists from Colorado Springs wrote Amendment 2, a measure seeking to amend Colorado's constitution by making it illegal to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. The measure was approved by Colorado voters that November, earning Colorado the nickname of the "Hate State," according to the Colorado Springs Pioneer Museum. Amendment 2 was ultimately struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996.

The city is also the headquarters of Focus on the Family, a fundamentalist Protestant organization whose founder James Dobson is known for his stances against gay and trans rights.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Eastern University changes its doctrines on marriage, which is a totally valid news story

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Eastern University changes its doctrines on marriage, which is a totally valid news story

OK, I know that it has only been two months since I wrote about this topic and that recent post’s headline even included a nod to the fact that this is a topic I have addressed before.

Sue me. That headline stated: “Reminder to journalists (again): Private schools – left, right – can defend their core doctrines.”

You see, as a former professor on several Christian campuses, and the graduate of the Baylor University Church-State Studies graduate program (which, alas, closed a decade ago), this is the kind of subject that matters to me. And since this is Thanksgiving, I really need to find a way to frame this quick post as a Thanksgiving offering.

So here goes. I am thankful for the First Amendment and I am thankful that, at this point, it still protects the believers on both the left and the right, in terms of the freedom to exercise their beliefs in the real world.

This First Amendment reminder was inspired by a recent Religion News Service story with this headline: “Eastern University on hold from CCCU after dropping ban on LGBTQ faculty.” I should state, right up front, that I am a former founder and director of the Washington Journalism Center program at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities and, what do you know, I once interviewed for a proposed faculty slot at Eastern, where it was clear that I was not a good fit, doctrinally speaking.

There is nothing all that unusual about this RNS story. As one would expect, there is zero attempt in this “news” report — as opposed to an analysis piece — to represent small-o orthodox voices in this debate about life on a campus that has, as the story notes, been headed to the doctrinal left for several decades. This niche-news, advocacy journalism approach has, alas, become the norm on this topic. Here is the overture:

Eastern University, a Christian school affiliated with the American Baptist Churches USA, has amended its policies to allow for the hiring of LGBTQ faculty and to add sexual orientation to its non-discrimination statement.

As a result, its membership with the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities has been put on hold during the 2022-23 academic year, and the school is no longer listed online among the 150 U.S. and Canadian schools that belong to the Christian higher education association.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

AP soft-pedals big story: USA progressives winning (sort of) the United Methodist war

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
AP soft-pedals big story: USA progressives winning (sort of) the United Methodist war

If you have followed the half century of United Methodist Church warfare over the Bible, marriage and sex — I started covering this story in the early 1980s — you know the debates have consistently contained activists in three different camps. Here’s that line-up, for newcomers:

(1) The doctrinal right fighting for enforcement of the doctrines and rules in the church’s Book of Discipline.

(2) The North American establishment that has insisted that it could find a way to tweak the status quo — doctrine would change from zip code to zip code — so that everyone could stay in the same big financial tent, including LGBTQ activists in UMC seminaries and agencies.

(3) The candid doctrinal left — think West and Northeast — that openly proclaims the need to change 2,000 years of Christian tradition to fit the doctrines of the Sexual Revolution.

These divisions only became more complex as the United Methodists evolved into a truly global denomination that included booming churches in Africa and Asia — a form of diversity that made the denomination’s shrinking North American establishment more and more nervous.

In global meetings, a small-o orthodox coalition — most of the Global South plus a conservative U.S. minority — kept winning vote after General Conference vote to defend current doctrines. However, COVID-19 prevented crucial global meetings, allowing the U.S. establishment (Camp 2) several years to steer the ship.

This brings me to a new Associated Press report that does a great job, if that was the goal, of soft-pedaling recent victories by the establishment and candid left. The headline: “LGBTQ-friendly votes signal progressive shift for Methodists.” The overture:

The United Methodist Church moved toward becoming more progressive and LGBTQ-affirming during U.S. regional meetings this month that included the election of its second openly gay bishop. Conservatives say the developments will only accelerate their exit from one of the nation’s largest Protestant denominations.

Each of the UMC’s five U.S. jurisdictions — meeting separately in early November — approved similarly worded measures aspiring to a future of church where “LGBTQIA+ people will be protected, affirmed, and empowered.”

How would these aspirations come to pass?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Latter-day Saints back proposed same-sex marriage law, but other flocks remain concerned

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Latter-day Saints back proposed same-sex marriage law, but other flocks remain concerned

More than a decade ago, I wrote a piece for Christianity Today headlined, “Should the marriage battleground shift to religious freedom?”

In that article, University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock made the case that Christian conservatives who opposed same-sex marriage should shift their focus to fighting for their First Amendment religious-liberty rights.

I was reminded of that discussion when The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — in what the Salt Lake Tribune characterized as “a stunning move” — “gave its support to a proposed federal law that would codify marriages between same-sex couples.”

The story by the Tribune’s Tamarra Kemsley and Peggy Fletcher Stack notes:

The Utah-based faith’s doctrine “related to marriage between a man and a woman is well known and will remain unchanged,” the church stated in a news release. “We are grateful for the continuing efforts of those who work to ensure the Respect for Marriage Act includes appropriate religious freedom protections while respecting the law and preserving the rights of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters.”

At Religion News Service, Bob Smietana traces the Latter-day Saints’ surprise backing of the federal law to the fallout from the church’s 2008 support for Proposition 8. That California ballot measure was aimed at banning same-sex marriage.

Smietana writes:

Voters narrowly approved Proposition 8, but their victory proved short-lived. A California court ruled that any ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

The church’s public image took a beating, said Benjamin Park, a scholar of Mormonism at Sam Houston State University. “Church leaders recognized the writing on the wall,” said Park.

The defeat led LDS leaders to back the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill that would protect same-sex marriage that Congress is now expected to pass this week with bipartisan support. In Wednesday’s 62-37 vote in the U.S. Senate to end debate on the bill and advance it, Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah was among the yeas.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: New York Times dwells (#surprise) on right-wing politics in the Latin Mass wars

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: New York Times dwells (#surprise) on right-wing politics in the Latin Mass wars

What do you call a Roman Catholic who believes the church’s teachings on centuries of moral theology, as in doctrines stated in great detail in the church’s official, and easily available, Catechism?

For journalists who do not trust the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops at this moment in time, here is the Vatican website copy of the Catechism.

According to the New York Times these pro-Catechism Catholics are part of a “rising right-wing strain within American Christianity as a whole” (I added bold text).

Then again, they might simply be “socially conservative and tradition-minded” folks. Or they may be people who support a “brand of new hard-right rhetoric and community” found in nasty corners of the Internet.

Then (yet) again, they may — this is the important part — be Donald Trump supporters.

But one thing they are not is normal Catholics. People who defend the stated teachings of the church are strange Catholics.

I raise this question because of a fascinating recent Times report that gained traction online for some obvious reasons. This feature was the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). Here is the double-decker headline on what was, for me, a interesting but at times bipolar story:

Old Latin Mass Finds New American Audience, Despite Pope’s Disapproval

An ancient form of Catholic worship is drawing in young traditionalists and conservatives. But it signals a divide within the church.

What makes this story so strange?

First of all, it offers some interesting information and images about the waves of people — including many, many large young families — who are embracing the ancient Latin Mass. I would, however, note that just as many or more of these believers are choosing Catholic churches that use the modern Novus Ordo rite, but offer services packed with chants, incense, processions, traditional prayers and, yes, even the Latin form of the Vatican II text. Someone should check and see how many people are requesting Eastern Rite Catholic parishes, as well.

In other words, the current campaign by the Vatican and strategic cardinals (in some blue American zip codes, for example) against the Tridentine Mass and, in some cases, other traditional forms of worship, may be part of a broader story.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Catholic LGBTQ voices rising in volume during Vatican's Synod on Synodality

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Catholic LGBTQ voices rising in volume during Vatican's Synod on Synodality

The "Chain of Discipleship" image showed five Catholics celebrating at a church, including a woman in priest's vestments and a person in a rainbow-letters "pride" shirt who is shouting, "We are the young people of the future and the future is now."

This art from the Philadelphia Catholic Higher Education Synod rocked Catholic social media -- especially when it appeared on the Synod of Bishops Facebook page, linked to the ongoing Synod on Synodality that began in 2021.

Catholics at the local, regional and national levels are sending the Vatican input about the church's future. A North Carolina parish submitted testimony from "Matthew (not his real name)," who had been recognized as his Catholic high school's most popular teacher. While "hiding his homosexuality," he married "his partner elsewhere."

"They decide to foster, love and adopt young children internationally," said this report. "Matthew's greatest sadness is that he has to hide his sexuality in order to keep his job in a church institution and that he does not feel welcome in the Catholic Church precisely because of his sexuality which he considers God-given, and this despite his attempt to love the poor and destitute through his pro-life decision to adopt."

Case studies of this kind recently led Belgian bishops to approve a document -- "On Pastoral Closeness to Homosexual People" (.pdf here) -- containing a rite for priests blessing same-sex couples. The bishops appointed a gay layman as inter-diocesan coordinator for LGBTQ care in a land in which 3.6% of baptized Catholics attend Mass on an average Sunday.

Meanwhile, it's important that a Vatican working document includes the term LGBTQ and even LGBTQIA in discussions of topics once considered forbidden, said Francis DeBernardo of New Ways Ministry, a Catholic gay-rights network pushed aside during the Pope St. John Paul II era.


Please respect our Commenting Policy