I saw a link to this article on a friend's Facebook page today. http://catholicexchange.com/155317/
It was an interesting article, and I have a few very important thoughts on this issue.
I strongly support religious freedom and believe that churches should not be required to pay for medical procedures to which they object for moral and religious reasons. I believe that the First Amendment is important and that the government should not regulate religious institutions in this way. If churches oppose contraception and abortion and have done so vocally for decades, it is part of their religious beliefs, and they should not be required to pay for these procedures. The government should not require clergy members to become hypocrites and preach something that they are not allowed to practice. If churches are exempt from property tax, they should also be exempt from paying for health insurance for abortion and contraception, if they oppose these things for religious reasons. However, employees of religious institutions should at least be able to get coverage for these procedures and medications, should the need ever arise. Employees across the country could form a union and get group coverage at a discounted rate for procedures exempted under the First Amendment. There is a better solution or compromise to this problem, and I think we need to explore other options. I like that the Southern Baptist churches are banding together with the Catholic bishops on THAT issue.
However, there is a great irony here. Even though the Southern Baptist churches uphold that "God has granted to all human beings the freedom to worship or not to worship according to the dictates of their consciences (Matthew 23:37; Revelation 3:20)," even citing Scripture to their purpose, and even though they fight for the religious freedoms of themselves and of Catholics, they are not upholding that freedom "to worship or not to worship" equally, by not upholding that freedom among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in the military and in the family.
This is not an issue of morality or immorality. Christian morality was adapted from Jewish morality, leaving behind many Jewish laws in the process (such as circumcision and dietary laws); and as Christianity continues to develop, it could certainly leave behind other Jewish laws in the future. Morality, which can in fact change over time, is not the issue here. The issue at heart is people's freedom to follow their hearts and to live as who they really are without fear of reprisal. Every person is born with an innate, God-given potential, a special talent that sets him apart from a majority of others and that also links him to a minority of others who share that talent. People have a need and an inner duty to develop that potential in order to truly live and be happy. That potential could be a talent with music, or a talent with words, or a talent with computers, or a talent with athletics. And just as musicians and athletes have to struggle to achieve their very best, men and women who are naturally attracted to the same sex have to struggle to achieve their own happiness and place in this world. And they have a right to do that without fear of reprisal. They have a right to seek out and find a person whom they want to spend the rest of their lives with. They have a right to build a life and a family with that person. This is not a case of morality. This is a case of people who are no more or less morally perfect than you or I, who want a family, just as so many others do. These are people who do not want to "live in sin," but actually want to live out in the open with someone they care about and raise children as a family. That should be enough to show how much they want to live in accord with traditional expectations. They want the actual sanctity of marriage, and not just the tax benefits.
Some people are born with different attractions. Others are born with different abilities. Still others are born with different skin colors. And still others are born in different countries, speak different tongues, eat different foods, practice different customs, or believe in different gods (or not-gods) and practice different ways of spirituality. None of us is the same, but we all have to follow our own paths. As Zeus says in Clash of the Titans: "Find and fulfill your destiny." It is a statement in the imperative. Every man has to find and fulfill his own destiny. No man has the right to impose a destiny on another.
Whatever thoughts you have in life come to you naturally, and thankfully, we have a First Amendment that protects your right to speak those thoughts out loud without fear of reprisal. However, with that right comes the obligation to let others express their thoughts and to live according to their needs. The Southern Baptist churches certainly have a right to express their thoughts about same-sex attractions. However, if they value religious freedom as they say they do, they also have an obligation to stand aside and to let people make their own decisions about how to live their own lives and pursue their own happiness. They have a right to preach their beliefs, but not to force others to conform. No one has that right. If the Southern Baptist churches oppose the Health and Human Services Mandate on the grounds of religious freedom, they must also oppose the Defense of Marriage Act because it is in fact a religiously based impediment to someone else's pursuit of happiness. It is their moral duty to do so. They cannot play as "Cafeteria Catholics," picking and choosing what rules they want to live by. That is the mandate in this country: freedom and justice for all. Not for a few but for all.
