Many conservative and Christian organization have reported concerns about the nomination of Chai Feldblum, a law professor at Georgetown University to serve as one of five Commissioners on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
But CMR has uncovered some explosive writings by Feldblum which portray how out of the mainstream she actually is.
In her essay called “GAY IS GOOD: THE MORAL CASE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY AND MORE,” Feldblum wrote:
I, for one, am not sure whether marriage is a normatively good institution. I have moved away from the belief that marriage is clearly the best normative way to structure intimate relationships, such that government should be actively supporting this social arrangement above all others.
She says that while marriage might be good for “most” people she insists that unless we acknowledge a “wide array” of other arrangements then marriage itself is harmful. As Catholic News Agency reported Feldblum signed a manifesto which praised polygamy.
Feldblum’s writings raise other concerns in that she also wrote in that same piece that “The morality to be advanced by the state is thus the morality of pluralism—that is, the explicitly non-judgmental moral values of equality, freedom, and choice.”
But what of cases where pluralistic rights collide in cases such as religious organizations don’t wish to hire active homosexuals because it conflicts with their faith, Feldblum comes down strongly against the religious minded organization and defends rulings where religious rights and gay rights collide. In her “Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion” she writes:
But, obviously, such a law does not require individuals subject to the law to change their beliefs. An employer who is required to hire a gay person or a hotel owner who is required to rent to a gay couple may continue to believe whatever he or she
wishes about the immorality or sinfulness of homosexuality.
So, in short, you can believe what you want but you’re not allowed to act on it in the real world.
She ironically points out that homosexuals have been told for years that they’re allowed to be gay but simply shouldn’t act on it. Feldblum, with her point of view, is essentially telling Christians that you can be Christian. You just can’t act like one.
October 21, 2009 at 4:11 am
How much longer before Doug Kmiec apologizes to the Church and to Americans?
October 21, 2009 at 5:06 am
think we'll be waiting a while on that one.
October 21, 2009 at 5:45 am
When you have a man who keeps putting his finger up there and keeps pulling down winners…after a while you start to get an idea about the guy that just maybe….
October 21, 2009 at 5:57 am
So, in short, you can believe what you want but you're not allowed to act on it in the real world.
The very essence of modern liberalism. When false equality and faux neutrality are the bedrock principles of a belief system—and liberalism is a belief system, a religion—this is the result. And, of course, the government acts are judge and arbiter, pretending to be balanced and equitable, all the while being imbalanced and tyrannical.
October 21, 2009 at 1:36 pm
When you are an employer or a provider of goods/services, you can be a racist Christian, but you can't act like one. You can be a misogynistic Christian, but you can't act like one. So, you should not be able to act like a homophobic Christian when it comes to employment or denying of goods/services, either.
October 21, 2009 at 1:40 pm
And Christian pharmacists should be forced to sell contraceptives? Provide abortions?
Christian wedding photographers should be forced to photograph same sex marriage ceremonies?
October 21, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Christian pharmacists should be forced to sell contraceptives to gay people if only for the prevention of HIV/AIDS and other STD's.
I am unaware of any gay couples that would require abortion services.
And Christian photographers should absolutely be professional enough to handle teh horror of taking pictures at a same-sex wedding ceremony without suffering permanent damage of biblical proportions.
October 21, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Christian pharmacists should be forced to sell contraceptives to gay people if only for the prevention of HIV/AIDS and other STD's.
Maybe gay people should be forced to open their own pharmacies.
October 21, 2009 at 2:44 pm
How about forcing alterations to fit a dress on a cross dresser in an area where women will have to be exposed to a strange man? This was the de riguor at my former employer, former being the operative word. This happened twice, and I was out of there the next week. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Isn't nonjudgemental and moral values an oxymoron?
All moral values require judgement.
October 21, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Don't be too sure that gay couples may not need abortion services. A pair of lesbos where I work decided to have a kid together and had their ova fertilized. Ended up with twins… one looks like her and the other looks like the other her. Point is, what if they had changed their minds? They may have need the abortionist.
October 21, 2009 at 3:17 pm
While I think Craig's logic is all over the map, he has a bit of a point about wedding photographers. How many wedding photographers will refuse to do remarriages after divorce or weddings where one party is Catholic and doesn't have permission from the bishop? As long as they have the same policy toward heterosexual pretend weddings as homosexual pretend weddings, I've got no problem with photographers turning people down.
And Matthew, why did you cite the quote about employers and hotel owner Why, unless one's homosexuality affects the job, should an employer be able be to turn down a job applicant just because the sins they commit are of a homosexual rather than heterosexual variety. Same with hotel owners. Unless they have a policy requiring their guests to rent separate rooms unless they're married or something like that, why should a hotel owner be allowed to accept an unmarried heterosexual couple but turn away a homosexual couple?
October 21, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Actually, one of the cases Feldblum cites is about a person who didn't want to rent to a cohabitating couple. The owner lost.
October 21, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Anon,
I will forego a snarky rebuttal and ask you to consider what sort of moral crisis you forsee occurring at the Planned Parenthood clinic if they find out one of their patients is a "lesbo".
October 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm
How can one hold a belief to be true if one cannot act on it in life? How if one cannot speak it? How can one proclaim an act to be immoral if one cannot refuse to not witness it? She probably doesn't care if people feel this is constraining on their lives or faiths.
But to address the issue using an analogy, a married man who looks at porn is being unfaithful to his wife in his heart even if she does not know. A married woman who flirts with a man is not guarding her heart for her husband even if nothing comes of it. We are told to pray to avoid even "the near occasion" of sin.
Demanding that one "pretend" that observing others does not affect one's values is demanding that those who hold a truth to be Truth, ignore that belief when in the presence of others. How then does one witness?
A law forcing people to sell things they consider immoral or to act to perform procedures they consider immoral or to witness acts they deem immoral by reasons of faith, natural law and centuries of societal norms is tyranical in favor of immorality and does not protect those who find such acts objectionable.
The same arguement is being put forth in other arenas; abortion, adoption. We can believe whatever we want as long as others don't object and we don't act on it…how is that following the way, the Truth and the Light? How is that being a witness of Christ to others?
Why would we know of Mother Teresa if she hadn't acted on God's words, revealed her heart in her actions? Good is as good does and good thinks and good believes.
Putting one's faith in a box to only take out on Sundays and Christmas is like only telling your children you love them on their birthday. It's how you live and love the whole totality of your experience that reveals one's faith.
October 21, 2009 at 6:04 pm
"Actually, one of the cases Feldblum cites is about a person who didn't want to rent to a cohabitating couple. The owner lost."
Ok that's just stupid and a dangerous precedent. I think what the people who want to "liberate" sexuality don't realize is that if you succeed in preventing someone from exercising their morality, what will then stop the government from limiting the non-moral decisions people make. Where does it stop? What happens when a pet owner or smoker sues an apartment owner who doesn't want pet hair/smoke in the apartment?
The problem with homosexuality and the law is you can't just make one overarching law that says a person's sexuality trumps all (which leads to things like no fault divorce and homosexual marriage) or that conscience trumps all (which leads to things like racists justifying discrimination on moral grounds).
I think it comes down to discriminating agaist the person vs. discriminating agaist the action. The law should protect people from discrimination merely because they're homosexual. It should also protect people's right to discriminate against their property and/or services being used to support homosexual marriage or perform homosexual acts.
Our legal system (and our culture as a whole) has a very tough time making this distinction – I think our moving away from natural law as the foundation of the law is a big reason for this.
October 21, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Reminds me of Elizabeth I, who claimed she did not want to "make windows into men's souls". In other words, it was fine to be Catholic as long as you did nothing about it. However, if you attended Mass, went to confession, or even owned a rosary, that was treason.
October 22, 2009 at 5:11 am
Well, what do you expect from someone named after a weak foreign tea?!? It's the new arugula, ya know!