Two opinion pieces about our constitutional rights appeared in this space recently, each providing a teachable moment.
On Feb. 28, a staff columnist, citing the First Amendment's protection of free speech, justified the right of UC San Diego students to hold an off-campus "Compton Cookout" party mocking Black History Month. He invited those who were offended to hold their own party to make fun of conservative white students.
The Compton Cookout was, indeed, an exercise of free speech, vile as it was for the hurtful racial stereotypes it promoted. The local office of the ACLU, that favorite whipping boy of social conservatives, urged that disciplinary action not be taken against the party's student organizers and praised the university for scheduling a teach-in to counter "offensive speech with more speech."
But suggesting that those offended by the Compton Cookout should hold a party making fun of conservative white students is a good example of what has been so damaging to our political discourse lately. If you're looking for shouting-match sound bites that reinforce political stereotypes, tune in to Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann any day of the week. You'll find lots of free speech there, but not much in the way of enlightenment about complex issues.
A few days after the free speech column appeared, a local pundit railed against those who challenge the legality of Proposition 8 on the grounds that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment's provision for equal protection under the law. He complained that churches opposed to same-sex marriage are even now being discriminated against for their religious beliefs, a violation of their First Amendment rights.
When it comes to legalizing same-sex marriage, are we forced to choose between the First and Fourteenth Amendments? Are the rights of freedom of religion and equal protection under the law mutually exclusive? I don't think so.
As evidence that churches have already lost their right to religious free expression, the columnist claimed that a Massachusetts Catholic Charities organization had to end its adoption work because the state discriminated against the group for its religious beliefs. But nobody was forced to abandon either their religious beliefs or practices. The adoption agency chose to end its service to the public because it refused to obey the state's anti-discrimination law.
The Catholic Church's right to free religious expression was protected, while same-sex couples retained their right to equal protection under the law. The losers here were children without parents.
During the recent federal court trial in San Francisco, a witness defending Proposition 8 was asked how same-sex marriage threatens traditional marriage.
After a long pause, he replied, "I don't know."
Now, that was a teachable moment.
No comments:
Post a Comment