Religious Freedom and the Right to Be a Citizen

A while back in August, we had some discussion here at MOJ about boycotts, the AALS, and Proposition 8 (the successful California marriage initiative to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman). My contribution is HERE. A few days ago I had the occasion to address a related issue regarding boycotts and other measures proposed by opponents of Proposition 8 against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the State of Utah.

Based on an article appearing in today’s The New York Times entitled “Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire,” it would seem that some opponents of Proposition 8 are beginning to achieve results in their campaign designed to overturn the result of a democratic election by any means.

The report involves yesterday’s resignation of Mr. Scott Eckern, the artistic director of the California Musical Theater, which is a non-profit organization located in Sacramento, CA. Mr. Eckern is married (to a woman), has a family, and is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He has been the artistic director of this group since 2002 and before that a “long time employee” (twenty-five years according to another news account) as the Times has reported. During his tenure no artist, no employee, nobody has raised concerns about him or his views on marriage or on his rights to participate in democracy. From the absence of any reports to the contrary, it is very much within the realm of strong probability that Mr. Eckern has worked well with everyone regardless of whether they are heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual, transgendered-sexual, asexual, or other-sexual. But, because of his rights as a citizen and as a religious believer, he has lost his livelihood. In this difficult economic climate, I pray that he find another position soon so that neither he nor his family will be made to suffer more for his exercise of the legally protected rights of religious liberty, political speech, and participation in the democratic processes.

However, it would seem that one homosexual activist would take issue with my perspective in that he is reported by the Times as stating that Mr. Eckern has brought this misfortune upon himself by not simply voting on the measure (but how could this be known by the activist since voting is by secret ballot and Mr. Eckern was not quoted as saying how he voted) but by contributing to the Proposition 8 campaign. The same activist has suggested that the $1,000 he donated is “a lot of money for an artistic director of a nonprofit.” The same person had no comment to make about another $1,000 contribution Mr. Eckern has made or will make to a “gay-rights group.” How a person spends one’s resources on matters that are legally protected should not be subject to another’s veto. I hasten to add that it appears that Mr. Eckern made the Proposition 8 donation from his own money as there has been no allegation that he misappropriated funds from his employer or anyone else in making the contribution that has drawn condemnation by some members of the homosexual community. I guess donations from ones resources can be questioned if they are considered to be the “wrong” kind of donations made in the exercise of democracy.

Another member of the homosexual community who is a “prominent” entertainer according to the Times “expressed anger” about the vote on Proposition 8. She informed the reporter from the Times that she would withhold her California state taxes because she and other homosexuals have been victimized and treated as “not full citizen[s]” as a result of the vote. With this argument, it would seem that any citizen of California could do the same by alleging “discrimination” on other grounds, but this seems to be a point she has not considered—at least in a public venue. However, she fails to recognize that her political voice has not been silenced by her opponents. Yet she and others are making strong effort to deny Mr. Eckern and those who supported Proposition 8 the rights of citizens which they demand for themselves.

From a legal position, I would suggest that those who argue that the “yes” vote on Proposition 8 puts “discrimination in the Constitution” need to reflect on the reality that existed in the law prior to the decision of In Re Marriage Cases this past May. By following their “reasoning” criticizing the outcome of this ballot initiative, it appears that “discrimination” existed prior to the California Supreme Court’s decision earlier this spring. I would argue, though, that this kind of understanding of “discrimination” is both impoverished and is unsubstantiated by reason as I have suggested elsewhere in Mirror of Justice. Equality is an important principle in the law and vital to the integrity of our democratic institutions; but this does not mean that every person is equal in every regard with every other person, and this is especially true in the marriage debate underlying Proposition 8.

It is time to conclude this posting. But, before I do, I would like to submit a hypothetical: if Mr. Eckern had made his donation to the campaign against Proposition 8, would we have read about his resignation earlier today? If he had not been a Mormon or member of any other religious group who opposes homosexual marriage on religious grounds, would we have read about his resignation earlier today? Another member of the homosexual community quoted by the Times who declared that he “was uncomfortable with money made off [his] work being used to put discrimination in the Constitution,” asserted that what Mr. Eckern did was “the most dangerous form of bigotry.”

Really? I respectfully but forcefully disagree. There may well be bigotry involved in the matter concerning Mr. Eckern, but if there is, it is not attributable to anything that he did, said, or believed in the exercise of his rights as a citizen and as a religious person. And yet, these rights that are the natural possessions of all citizens—not just some—have been easily denied to him by those who claim that their “rights” have been threatened by his participation in democracy. We live in interesting times that confront a new darkness appearing on the political horizon. I pray that the storm will pass, but the forecast is not optimistic.

RJA sj