Last week the California Senate passed Concurrent Resolution 99 in a party-line vote. Concurrent Resolution 99 formally demands that people of faith be more tolerant to members of the LGBTQ community when councelling them. The legislation was sponsored by state Assemblyman Evan Low, a fairly democratic candidate. The text of the resolution condemns pastors and religious counselors assisting those who are struggling with unwanted same sex attraction and gender confusion. It also labels the religious ideologies of these pastors as "stigmatizing beliefs" that contribute to depression and suicide. Concurrent Resolution 99 comes just a year after Bill 2943 was passed, which would have labeled the counselling options of pastors and religious leaders as consumer fraud. However, Bill 2943 was never signed by the governor, therefore never becoming law.In my opinion, Concurring Resolution 99 is unconstitutional. The main point of the free exercise clause is to protect the religious beliefs of U.S. citizens. While it is not a very welcoming belief, it is the right of these pastors and counselors to hold such a religious belief. They are not imposing on nor coercing anyone to conform to their religion either. This resolution may not have the force of law behind it, but it is a piece of legislation enacted by the government. The government is still condemning citizens due to their religious beliefs, which is unconstitutional. This is an act of coercion passed by the California government. The government should stay neutral in all religious affairs. Next is the principle of discrimination in these beliefs. The religious beliefs of these people may in fact cause harm to others. However, the circumstances are different because the holders of the beliefs are not outspokenly slandering the LGBTQ community. The members of the LGBTQ community are coming to the religious leaders and talking to them about their unwanted same sex attraction or gender confusion. They are voluntarily and willingly meeting with the counselors in private to discuss these matters. Therefore, any harm caused by the pastors' opinions is not at the fault of the pastors. I think California Republican state Senator Andreas Borgeas said it best: "When an individual seeks therapy or guidance before a religious leader, whether it be a mosque, a temple, or a church, that's a private setting... to disallow or create the pathway where we tell individuals they cannot say certain things should give us pause." This issue is extremely important because it is a complete violation of First Amendment rights. If left untouched, this legislation and the ideas surrounding it could cause a catastrophic rabit hole of issues down the road for the United States.
5 comments:
On one hand, I agree that this is a violation of the first amendment -- pastors/priests should be able to practice their religion freely, and community members are coming to them for counseling by their own free will. I think that the First Amendment does protect the religious expression of the counselors in a religious setting, and people from the LGBTQ community coming to them for counseling shouldn't necessarily be expecting a benevolent reaction from them of they know that their sexuality goes against the beliefs of the church/pastors. On the other hand, though, I think that, for some members of the LGBTQ community, a church may be the only place to receive affordable counseling or care, so don't those individuals deserve to be treated with respect and fairness? Although, this issue isn't necessarily the fault of the LGBTQ community nor is it the fault of the church counseling programs -- rather, it is the result of the potential shortcomings of the government in providing affordable counseling or mental health care. So, in the sense of the First Amendment, I guess I do ultimately think that this resolution is unconstitutional, but I do think that its controversy highlights important potential shortcomings of the government that might not have otherwise been addressed without the passing of the resolution.
I agree with the post. It seems to be an unnecessary infringement on the right to practice religion. It's aim is not the restrict how Christianity behaves with regards to other religions or institutions, but restricts how Christianity can operate. In addition, I think these people need to take some responsibility. It is likely that most pastors view homosexuality as a sin, so what are they realistically expecting from pastors? They are asking for the state to impose sanctions on how religion can operate solely for their own benefit.
I agree that Concurrent Resolution 99 is unconstitutional. While I understand that a "resolution" is not enforceable, I believe this decision can be a slippery slope when it comes to future decisions regarding the communication between churchgoers and pastors. If we pass a resolution that condemns private communication in a private setting, will the courts ultimately pass laws that can infringe on our private conversations in other settings as well? This is especially concerning during a time when all of our data is out there on the web for the world to see. I think the quote used in TJ's post is the most indicative of my beliefs towards this issue. While the First Amendment right of free speech isn't absolute, it should still protect the ability for anti LGBTQ advocates to express their beliefs in private settings, especially when the churchgoer is making the conscious decision to discuss the topic.
I strongly agree with the author's opinions on this ruling. It seems somewhat ridiculous to me to think that people facing problems with these aspects of their identity would seek guidance from Christians, of all religious groups, and reprimand them for their beliefs. But, granted, to be fair we should give benefit of the doubt to these people and assume they have nowhere else to go or do not know any better. I think I find it hard to argue for this ruling. This seems to be a fairly clear imposition of the state on Religious practice. The response of a person to the opinions of a religious group is not the group's responsibility, nor the responsibility of the state. Now, if the group was expressing their belief's in any real detrimental way, then change would be important, but I strongly believe that the groups that advocated for the LGBTQ community and others effected are severely disillusioned. I was quite surprised at this article, as there seems to be a misunderstanding on the part of the state. If we disallow religious institutions to express their beliefs, even in a slight way, then it may lead to more restrictions that violate the first amendment. Again I strongly disagree with the ruling, and find it hard to reconcile with the basis of the state's decision.
I fully agree with the points brought up in this post. This resolution, a piece of legislation, although unenforceable, is a rule that violates the First Amendment. It explicitly states that we all have the right to free exercise of religion. These members of the LBGTQ+ community, that were the reason for the resolution, were also going to religious leaders by choice. Nobody was forcing them to go to their pastors or ministers about their inner debates about sexuality, so how can they be upset just because they didn't like what they were told? Religion is not at fault in this situation and this resolution directly violates the First Amendment.
Post a Comment