Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 10:33:39 0600
To: Rob Weinberg
From: Frank Grose
Subject: Your Reply
Happy Thanksgiving!
Read your reply with great interest, consideration, and amusement.
Why was I not surprised that you diverted the dialog to the issue of homosexuality, and not "government promotion." I could have guessed how you felt about tolerance, homosexuals, and all that. I wanted your take on "promotion." That "homophobia" thing you kept mentioning is laughable... it's a myth. I shall comment further on that later. For the time being, I agree with a lot of what you said in there. Gotta do more than sit here in do email. Been at the computer most of the morning. Time to enjoy the holiday.
Thanks for the effort it took putting this response together....
Frank
Date: Thu Nov 27 17:30:03 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Homo promotion
Real quickie thought that may not have occurred to me in drafting the first reply(ies).
Promotion and/or endorsement is a concept that derives from the establishment clause of the first amendment. Establishment has been defined in the cases to include those two ideas, that if the government promotes, or in any way endorses RELIGION, not just a denomination, but religion generally, then it is a violation of the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof...."
Now, we would agree that the question of homosexuality, sex education, tolerance, etc. is a political question in and of itself. That is, whether the government "promotes" tolerance or even the lifestyle itself as an acceptable alternative to marriage is political. If it is promotion then it is the "promotion" of the left's political, not religious, agenda. The answer is simple: That's what the electoral process is all about. If we don't like their politics, vote them out of office.
It may be difficult not to conceive of it as a religious issue also, because of your sincerely held religious beliefs about biblical prohibition against it. But, 100 years ago, the Mormons said their religious beliefs included multiple wives, and there was biblical precedent for it. Nevertheless, in the Reynolds v. U.S. case that Barton discusses that I think I sent you, the Supreme Court said, "naaaahhhh... just because it's a religious issue to you doesn't make it one in the eyes of the constitution. That analysis is true in other contexts as well.
Now, you can ARGUE common decency, morality, even that the Bible says so, all you want in the political debate about what to do with homosexuals, but it remains a purely political question for purposes of constitutional analysis. The establishment clause doesn't apply to political agendas, that's a matter covered in the free speech clause. Different analysis. So, no, what's good for the goose on prayer is not good for the gander on homosexuals.
Next question? ;=)
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment