Which Don't Belong? Lawyers, Religion, Homosexuality

If you answered homosexuality - WRONG.

If you answered religion - WRONG.

It's lawyers. Don't worry if you answered incorrectly, though. A lot of people aren't good at those word association puzzles. The average SAT score is pretty indicative of that...but the state of our education system is a whole 'nother blog.

This blog centers specifically on a letter written by attorney Steve C. Whiting in Portland, Maine to the local paper, Portland Press Herald. It is so important to save this letter from the cyber-trash heap, I have reprinted the full text below.

MAINE VOICES: Stephen C. Whiting
Why some
Christians oppose gay rights

I am writing to respond to a
recent column entitled "It's Unchristian to Oppose Gay Rights" (April 4 Press
Herald).

I am legal counsel to the Christian Civic League. I am also on
its board of directors. So I can answer the question: "Why would the leadership
of the Christian Civic League sponsor yet another referendum to veto yet another
gay rights bill?"

First, the primary purpose of the gay rights bill is to
give legal and social approval to homosexuality, to pave the way for gay
marriage. That is what gay rights bills did in Vermont (where they have gay
civil unions) and Massachusetts (where they have gay marriage).

The Bible
is very clear that homosexuality is wrong and should not be endorsed by society;
and that marriage is between a man and a woman only - not between two men or two
women.

Proponents of gay rights/gay marriage ask: "But isn't
homosexuality genetic?" The answer is no. Thousands of homosexuals have changed
their sexual orientation, and are happily married to people of the opposite sex
and have children.

Second, there is no widespread discrimination against
gay people in this state in employment, housing, etc. If there were, the
Christian Civic League would strongly condemn it. But have you ever heard a
waiter say to a gay couple: "We don't serve your kind here"? Have you ever heard
a hotel check-in clerk say: "We don't rent rooms to gays
here"?

Proponents of the bill say 40 percent of "hate crimes" in the
state involve gay bashing. However, this gay rights bill has nothing to do with
violence against gay people. It only purports to prevent discrimination against
gay people in employment, housing, etc. Since such discrimination is virtually
nonexistent, it is clear the primary purpose (if not the only purpose) of this
bill is to legitimize homosexuality and pave the way for gay
marriage.

Third, unlike discrimination based on race or ethnicity,
sometimes discrimination based on sexual orientation is reasonable and should
not be outlawed. For example, under this bill if a school wanted to hire a gym
teacher whose job would include supervising the locker room and group showers,
the school could not refuse to hire a gay person who would be sexually oriented
toward the students. Or if you were financially strapped, so you had to take in
boarders to live with you and your family to make ends meet, you could not
refuse to rent to a gay couple.

In fact, the governor's gay rights bill
defines "sexual orientation" as: "a person's actual or perceived
heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity or
expression."

This means that if a transvestite applied for a receptionist
job, you could not refuse to hire him, even if you did not think it would be
appropriate to have a man dressed in women's clothes greeting your clients. Or
worse, it means employers, hotels and restaurants could not stop a man from
using the women's bathroom if the man said he thought he was a woman.

And
fourth, gay rights laws inevitably lead to reverse discrimination. If two people
apply for a job, one gay and one straight, the employer better hire the gay
applicant or he could be sued. And an employer could not fire, fail to promote
or reprimand a gay employee without running the risk of being sued. Defending
against such suits would cost the employer tens of thousands of dollars, even if
the employer won!

Moreover, anyone who says anything negative about
homosexuality at work would have to be fired for creating a "hostile work
environment" - so while gays could extol the virtues of homosexuality at work,
anyone who dared express a contrary opinion would risk losing his
job.

These are not wild, imagined concerns. These are examples of how gay
rights laws are actually being used and abused around the country
today.

Jesus told the people not to kill the woman caught in adultery.
However, he then told the woman to "go and sin no more." He did not say: "Let's
go to the Legislature and get them to pass a law making adultery
legal."

We all have gay friends and relatives. We love them regardless of
their sexual preference. But that does not mean we approve of their lifestyle -
which is the primary purpose, if not the sole purpose, of this gay rights
bill.

- Special to the Press Herald

Up front and honest - I'm no lawyer. I can't even claim to be related to a lawyer to add an air of validity to what I have to say.

Ok, my sister is a lawyer, but for the right price, she would convincingly argue that that ain't true. It's the nature of lawyers. For the right price, they'll argue any point regardless of the truth.

Now take a close look at this letter from attorney Stephen C. Whiting of Portland, Maine. He represents the Christian Civic League. They must be paying him a whole heap of money to go out on the limb with the legal claims he has put forth.

He claims the purpose of a gay rights bill is to lend legal and social approval of homosexuality that would eventually pave the way to gay marriage. The Bible, however, condemns homosexuality and defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The claim that there may be a genetic component to homosexuality is casually brushed off with no further explanation and complete disregard to the myriad of scientific evidence and general medical consensus.

That's the crux of his argument: the Bible says homosexuality is not normal and that's the final authority on the matter.

He even advocates that sometimes, discrimination against homosexuals in employment and housing is justified.

How's that again? Because the Bible says so, we can treat others as less than equal citizens? As a lawyer, has he ever heard of the phrase "separation of Church and state"? I think I learned that in my third grade civics class. His Bible may say that it's ok to treat some citizens as less than equal, but my Bible does not. If he's going to make a law, he dang well better be making it on more than just his Biblical beliefs.

Or, in this case, the radical, conservative, religious nuts who are paying him tons of money need to practice their religion and stay out of law.

I do hope the Christian Civic League is paying attorney Stephen C. Whiting of Portland, Maine handsomely to say such un-lawyer like arguments. If not, we may have our first example of a welfare-qualified lawyer, ever, 'cause Lord knows these kinds of arguments tell me that he isn't a very smart lawyer and probably doesn't have very many clients who are willing to lose their cases just to help him put food on his table.

I wonder if attorney Stephen C. Whiting of Portland, Maine is fully aware that the Bible accepts eight different forms of marriage? I wonder if he and his client, the Christian Civic League, would be willing to endorse these marriages as legal.

Probably not. And that throws their whole because-the-Bible-says-so argument out of the court room and onto the street where it can ooze through the manhole covers and disappear into the sewers where it belongs.

If you are so inclined, you can always sound off to the Portland Press Herald with a letter to the editor. Of course, they just published a letter one of their readers wrote. But let's change attorney Stephen C. Whiting's letter a bit and then ask yourself, "Would the paper have printed this letter?" If you're answer is "No" then sounding off to the paper would be a good idea.

Discrimination acts currently protect individuals from discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age and disability. The only protected class in this listing that is purely choice is religion. You are not born Christian. You are taught to be Christian. So let's give the readers out there who see nothing wrong with attorney Stephen C. Whiting's letter the benefit of the doubt and assume, for the moment, that all the scientific evidence is rubbish and homosexuals choose to be homosexuals.

So here is attorney Stephen C. Whiting's letter rewritten with regards to religion - the other choice lifestyle - seeking protection of the law:

I am writing to respond to a recent column entitled "It's
Unchristian to Oppose Religion Rights" (April 4 Press Herald).

I am
legal counsel to the Christian Civic League. I am also on its board of
directors. So I can answer the question: "Why would the leadership of the
Christian Civic League sponsor yet another referendum to veto yet
another religion rights bill?"

First, the primary purpose of
the religion rights bill is to give legal and social approval to Catholics,
to pave the way for Catholic marriage. That is what religion rights
bills did in Vermont (where they have Catholic civil unions) and
Massachusetts (where they have Catholic marriage).

The Bible is very
clear that Catholism is wrong and should not be endorsed by society; and
that marriage is between a Christian man and a Christian woman only - not
between two Catholics.

Proponents of religion rights/Catholic marriage ask: "But
isn't Catholism genetic?" The answer is no. Thousands of Catholicss have
changed their religion, and are happily married to Christian people and have
children.

Second, there is no widespread discrimination
against Catholics in this state in employment, housing, etc. If there
were, the Christian Civic League would strongly condemn it. But have you ever
heard a waiter say to a Catholic couple: "We don't serve your kind here"?
Have you ever heard a hotel check-in clerk say: "We don't rent rooms to
Catholics here"?

Proponents of the bill say 40 percent of "hate crimes"
in the state involve Catholic bashing. However, this religion rights
bill has nothing to do with violence against Catholics. It only purports to
prevent discrimination against Catholics in employment, housing, etc. Since such
discrimination is virtually nonexistent, it is clear the primary purpose (if not
the only purpose) of this bill is to legitimize Catholism and pave the way
for Catholic marriage.

Third, unlike discrimination based on race or
ethnicity, sometimes discrimination based on religion is reasonable and should
not be outlawed. For example, under this bill if a school wanted to hire a gym
teacher whose job would include supervising the locker room and group showers,
the school could not refuse to hire a Catholic, or even a Catholic
priest, who might be sexually oriented toward the students. Or if you
were financially strapped, so you had to take in boarders to live with you and
your family to make ends meet, you could not refuse to rent to a Catholic
couple.

In fact, the governor's religion rights bill defines
"religion" as: "a person's actual or perceived religious identity or
expression." This means that if a Catholic applied for a receptionist
job, you could not refuse to hire him, even if you did not think it would be
appropriate to have someone wearing crosses and rosary beads or ashes on
their forehead greeting your clients.

And fourth, religion rights laws inevitably lead to reverse
discrimination. If two people apply for a job, one Catholic and one
Christian, the employer better hire the Catholic applicant or he could be
sued. And an employer could not fire, fail to promote or reprimand
a Catholic employee without running the risk of being sued. Defending
against such suits would cost the employer tens of thousands of dollars, even if
the employer won!

Moreover, anyone who says anything negative
about Catholism at work would have to be fired for creating a "hostile work
environment" - so while Catholics could extol the virtues of Catholism
at work, anyone who dared express a contrary opinion would risk losing his
job.

These are not wild, imagined concerns. These are examples of
how religion rights laws are actually being used and abused around the
country today.

Jesus told the people not to kill the woman caught in
adultery. However, he then told the woman to "go and sin no more." He did not
say: "Let's go to the Legislature and get them to pass a law making adultery
legal."

We all have Catholic friends and relatives. We love them
regardless of their religious affiliation. But that does not mean we approve of
their lifestyle - which is the primary purpose, if not the sole purpose, of
this religion rights bill.

If this letter doesn't outrage you, feel free to substitute any other religion in for Catholics - Protestants, Methodist, Muslims, Wiccans, Satanist, New Age Spiritualists - whatever you like and read it again. I'd be willing to bet no paper, including the Portland Press Herald, would even seriously entertain the idea of printing the letter.

If you're really outraged, feel free to call or write attorney Stephen C Whiting of Portland, ME:

Whiting, Steve - Whiting Law Firm
(207) 780-0681
75 Pearl St # 207
Portland, ME

Click on the link and you can e-mail him, if that's easier.

We should no longer be forced to accept public displays of prejudisms, bigotry, and hatred towards homosexuals in silence. Let him and the Portland Press Herald know that such blatant displays of antagonism towards homosexuals is no more tolerated than blatant displays of discrimination towards the disabled, religious intolerance, sexism, or racism are tolerated.