In San Francisco right now, a battle is raging over benefits for the unmarried partners of gays and lesbians. This issue threatens to subordinate the First Amendment rights of the Roman Catholic Church to the whims of an overzealous electorate. In four months, a city ordinance will take effect that requires companies that work with San Francisco municipal governments to provide health and other benefits to the partners of unmarried employees. Included in that category is the non-profit Catholic Charities, which at once works with city municipalities but also with a Catholic ideology.
If Catholic Charities is not granted an exemption (and currently Mayor Willie Brown Jr. insists that none shall be granted), the Roman Catholic Church will be forced to comply with a law that runs counter to its religious beliefs. This subordination of religious beliefs, as a practice, is downright dangerous for America. At no time should government suppress the religious beliefs of its constituents. At issue here is not the correctness of the Church's position. Instead, it is its right to hold it. While lofty in its intent, this ordinance, as is, is smothering and overbearing. Instead, the city should grant Catholic Charities an exemption from the ordinance to avoid the conflict that church and state interaction would inevitably bring.
First, the subjugation of religious freedom to the goals of the state is wrong. As a practicing Roman Catholic, albeit of the cafeteria variety (I take from its doctrine what I want and leave the rest), I find it a bit frightening that a city would endeavor to force me to act against my religious faith. While I do not agree with the Church on the issue of homosexuality, I wish to avoid precedence for state interference in religious life.
Any individual practicing religion holds deeply to his/her tenets. America does not need a government that steps on these highly personal beliefs. Furthermore, doing so tells those who practice religious beliefs not in line with those of the state that their views are wrong and that their beliefs are not tolerated. This, in turn, can do nothing but diminish general faith in government.
In a time when fewer Americans are voting and the perception of politicians is at a post-Nixon low, the American political system is in a fragile state. Mayor Brown's steadfastness seeks to redress the injustices against single-sex couples with the marginalization of organized religion. A better balance must be struck. If only for the singular importance of religious tolerance, San Francisco should grant the Catholic Church an exemption for the preservation of the health of civil liberty in its relation to the entire American democracy.
If you recall, this same oppression was why many of our own forefathers sought the welcoming, tolerant shores of these United States. In fact, the history of such is so strong that in their very first amendment to the Constitution, the framers expressly prohibited Congress from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
I do not wish to contest the San Francisco voters' decision to extend benefits to the unmarried partners of those working with groups associated with the city municipality. Many groups, including small businesses and big corporations, have opposed this ordinance with financial issues in mind and are left clamoring for exemptions. Brown is right to be wary of exemptions because every business in the city will be knocking on his door if he starts handing them out. To business interests I say, with Brown: The voters have spoken.
However, the Roman Catholic Church's claim to an exemption is far more significant. Instead of relatively petty financial considerations, the Church's situation calls to the forefront the rights of all Catholics in San Francisco, Catholics across the country, and by extrapolation, anyone who practices religion. Mr. Brown, I suggest you grant an exemption to the Church to avoid a dangerous infringement on civil liberties.