>> ZJ: A few weeks ago, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops sent a letter
to members of Congress, urging them to vote against the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination
Act. The Act would prohibit discrimination by employers on the basis of sexual orientation
and gender identity. In their letter to Congress, the bishops seem to rely on two central points:
First, that being gay is wrong according to their religion, and second, that employers
should be allowed to discriminate against gay people in accordance with their religious
views. Neither of these arguments has any merit whatsoever. The letter states that "[u]nder
no circumstances can [homosexual acts] be approved", citing a portion of the Catholic
Catechism. The Catechism refers to "tradition", which is based on "Sacred Scripture". But
arguing from tradition and scripture is essentially just saying "because we said so", with a side
of "because they said so". The Catholic Church's scriptural condemnation of homosexuality really
carries no more weight than the Islamic condemnation of pork, or the Scientologist condemnation
of psychiatry. Scripture is simply a document that provides a snapshot of the culture and
morality of an ancient civilization. It does not offer a hotline to eternal truth, and
there's no reason to regard it as such. But aside from the Bible, the letter offers several
other reasons in an effort to justify discrimination against gay people. The bishops claim that
"Homosexual conduct is categorically closed to the transmission of life, and does not
reflect or respect the personal complementarity of man and woman." But by that same measure,
single people could be condemned as well. After all, being single is also "categorically
closed to the transmission of life, and does not reflect or respect the personal complementarity
of man and woman." Does that mean it's wrong for people to be single, like priests? In
any case, treating the "transmission of life" as central to the acceptability of a relationship
would be a mistake. A relationship does not need to be procreative in order to be mutually
beneficial, healthy, stable, satisfying, deeply valued by its participants, and in all respects,
morally acceptable. And it should be obvious that personal complementarity is the very
essence of such relationships. The complementarity of two individuals, united by their devotion
to one another, is the quintessential example of love. And achieving this complementarity
is possible regardless of whether you're gay or straight. Heterosexuality has never been
a prerequisite to a dedicated and meaningful relationship. The bishops go on to state that
"In contrast to sexual conduct within marriage between one man and one woman - which does
serve both the good of each married person and the good of society - heterosexual and
homosexual conduct outside of marriage has no claim to special protection by the state."
In doing so, they acknowledge that this sexual conduct is beneficial to the partners involved
in and of itself. Such benefits do not hinge upon procreation, and neither are these benefits
limited to heterosexuals. Same-sex couples obtain the same joy and fulfillment from their
committed relationships and the intimacy of such relationships, and this benefit to them
also translates into a benefit for society. In contrast, forcing gay people to refrain
from such relationships, for life, has been shown to be clearly harmful to them, precisely
because it deprives them of those very same benefits. But regardless of the views of the
Catholic Church, and whether these views are accurate, do these beliefs make it acceptable
to discriminate against gay people? The bishops claim that they wish to "protect the religious
freedom of the Church, and of all others who hold similar views." What they've failed to
realize is that these views are simply irrelevant here. It has already been established that
there are areas in which one's personal religious views are not an acceptable excuse for discrimination.
And employment is one of these areas. A Protestant Klansman business owner cannot discriminate
against black people, even if his religious beliefs regard them as inferior. A fundamentalist
Christian cannot discriminate against women, even if his religion teaches that no woman
can hold authority over a man. So how is it any different when a Catholic employer wants
to discriminate against gay people? What makes that okay? Are Catholic religious views to
be considered more valid than other religious views? Or could it be that gay people are
less deserving of protection from discrimination? The bishops affirm the latter, but they do
so on the basis of their religion. And why should their religious beliefs enjoy a privileged
position above other religious beliefs that can't justify discrimination? The bishops
claim that "The Catholic Church’s teaching cannot, therefore, be equated with 'unjust
discrimination,' because it is based on fundamental truths about the human person and personal
conduct." But their alleged "fundamental truths" are only fundamental and truthful provided
that we accept the Catholic Church as a valid authority and their interpretation of the
Bible as correct. There are many other religions that accept no such thing. They might disagree
strongly with the teachings of the Catholic Church, including their reading of the Bible.
Some of them go so far as to completely reject the notion that there's anything wrong with
being gay. In any case, it certainly isn't the place of the government to decide that
one religion is more true than another, nor should it be. And concordantly, it isn't the
place of the government to treat one religion as a more acceptable rationale for discrimination
than another. These religious views should not be inserted into our civil law. The so-called
"fundamental truths" of Catholic doctrine have hardly lived up to their name, and discrimination
based on this doctrine can indeed be unjust. The bishops later claim that "the Conference
would, however, be interested in discussing legislation that would protect persons with
a homosexual inclination from unjust discrimination, without protecting homosexual conduct." And
yet, this is exactly what the proposed legislation consists of. The Employment Non-Discrimination
Act would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, not sexual conduct.
Sexual orientation *is* sexual inclination. However, if an employer would seek to discriminate
against gay people for having sex in their private lives, without discriminating against
straight people for having sex, then that discrimination is not based on sexual conduct.
It *is* discrimination based on sexual orientation, because their sexual orientation, or inclination,
is the sole point of difference. So perhaps what the bishops really meant is that the
proposed law would not allow employers to require that gay people remain celibate, while
permitting straight people to have sex freely. But why should celibacy be necessary in order
for you to have a job? And why should employers be allowed to exercise such an invasive degree
of control over their employees' private lives outside of work? This is a plainly unreasonable
expectation that should not be imposed upon anyone as a prerequisite to holding a job.
The bishops further state that "The bill also lacks an exemption for a 'bona fide occupational
qualification', for those cases where it is neither unjust nor inappropriate to consider
an applicant’s sexual inclination." This strikes me as an especially odd complaint,
because in what kind of Catholic-owned business would heterosexuality be essential to doing
your job? Are they talking about porn, escort services, what? But perhaps the most bizarre
portion of their letter is their insistence that "persons with a homosexual inclination
'must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity,'" and "We recognize that
no one should be an object of scorn, hatred, or violence for any reason, including sexual
inclination." How is this at all compatible with wanting to discriminate against people
for being gay? Is that their idea of what it means to treat them with "compassion"?
Do they consider it "accepting" to reject every prospective employee who's gay, just
because they're gay, when this has no relevance to their job at all? Does it seem very "sensitive"
that a person could conceivably never find a job or make a living, simply because they
aren't straight? Do they think it's "sensitive" to try and ensure that nothing is done to
mitigate this? And do they not see it as hateful that gay people could be forced to deprive
themselves of the same relationships that everyone else is free to enjoy, just to have
a job? If that's their idea of respecting us, I'd hate to see what scorn is like. There
is simply nothing compassionate about this. There is no compassion in discriminating against
gay people, and there is no compassion in endorsing this discrimination by ensuring
that they can't be protected against it. When you're blathering about how respectful you
are, while you work to keep gay people from holding a job, your "compassion" is nothing
but empty words. If you want to see gay people unemployed, with no way to make a living,
you don't get to brag about how much you care for them. We can all see how much you really
care. Own up to your hatred. And own up to its consequences for the people you claim
to respect. And if you can't bring yourself to do that, then either stop lying, or try
showing some real compassion for a change.