The Family Research Council today criticized a joint New York Times op-ed by the antigay advocate David Blankenhorn and gay libertarian Jonathan Rauch, in which both authors recommend a compromise federal civil-unions law that would preserve robust rights for religious organizations and individuals to deny recognition of such unions.

David Link of the libertarian-leaning Independent Gay Forum points out:

The compromise tests the veracity of the claim that religious believers worry civil recognition of same-sex relationships will invade their belief system through the enforcement of civil rights laws which require gays to be treated equally. The right has been able to scare up a few anecdotes about this misuse of civil rights laws: a wedding photographer forced to photograph a lesbian wedding; a same-sex couple who wanted to take advantage of a church-owned gazebo, which the church offered for use to the public; and churned them into a froth of paranoia about governmental intrusion into religion.

I’m with Jon in offering this proposal up publicly. I am happy to let the right know that we are dedicated to stopping this cascade of anecdotes. If they want additional assurance that the first amendment’s separation of church and state means what it says, I will be on the front lines to add a statutory “and we really mean it” clause.

But I don’t think anyone will take us up on this offer, since I don’t think this is really their worry. It is not the first amendment they are concerned with, it is the fourteenth. It is equality that is the problem for them. Any government recognition at all of same-sex couples is more equality than they can bear.

I think Link is correct: FRC has effectively admitted that it respects neither the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion, nor the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee that all Americans shall receive equal protection under the law.

CNN remembers:

In its May 15 ruling legalizing gay marriage in California, the [California Supreme Court] justices seemed to signal that a ballot initiative like Proposition 8 might not be enough to change the underlying constitutional issues of the case in the court’s eyes.

The ruling said the right to marry is among a set of basic human rights “so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.”

Enemies of individual freedom and religious liberty — including Mormon, Catholic, and Protestant religious-rightists — chose to ignore the human rights of fellow Californians. Through a campaign of outright lies and unethical activities, religious-right groups conned California voters into approving — by a narrow margin — Proposition 8, which by a simple majority vote nullified human rights and family values of an entire demographic minority of Californians.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, defenders of the freedom to marry contend that Proposition 8 used a ballot-initiative process which is legally restricted to minor changes to the state constitution. According to California law, changes of Proposition 8’s magnitude are supposed to be made only through a careful and deliberative legislative process.

Prop 8 replaced the freedom to marry with a sectarian religious ban that discriminated against the civil marriage and relationship rights of persons who choose not to adhere to the religious biases of one powerful voter bloc.

Today, according to CNN, the high court agreed to hear challenges to the constitutionality of Proposition 8. The case will not be heard before May 2009; until then, antifamily religious-rightists continue their efforts to nullify the pre-existing marriages of gay and lesbian couples.

Hat tip: All Facts and Opinion