Those days are over. The gay caucus of the California State Assembly is not interested in live and let live. This is an aggressive, intrusive movement that brooks no disagreement. Consider the following recent developments.
The CA State Assembly passed legislation banning discrimination in state operated or funded programs on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill, SB 1441, makes no provision for religious exceptions. Religious universities and schools will be required to take no notice of same sex conduct, or risk losing any student financial assistance from the state. This legislation was sponsored by Democratic state senator, Sheila Kuehl.
This bill curtails the ability of Christian schools to maintain their religious identity. Even now, a California Lutheran high school is being sued because it suspended two female students who were having a sexual relationship, in violation of the school’s code of conduct. There is no place for religious disapproval of same sex sexual conduct in the topsy-turvy ideological universe of the LBGT caucus. Evidently, we have to tolerate “gender non-conformity,” but we don’t have to tolerate diversity of religious standards of sexual behavior.
If the state of California were a “night watchman state,” that simply enforced contracts and provided police protection, the claim that the state shouldn’t discriminate based on sexual orientation might make sense. But no one believes for a moment that gay people can’t get their contracts enforced in California. The state continues to expand its already extensive redistribution of income and regulation of life far beyond any libertarian, mind-your-own-business philosophy.
The State Assembly recently approved a bill (SB 840) granting universal health insurance, and designating the state as the single-payer for health care. If the governor signs this bill into law, the state will have increased leverage for regulating doctors and hospitals. Every religious hospital and clinic will be receiving, not just part of their income, but all their income, from the state.
Even now, a lesbian is suing a Southern California doctor because the doctor refused perform an artificial insemination on unmarried women, citing religious objections to inseminating a woman whose child would have no father. Artificial insemination is an elective procedure if ever there was one. The woman found another doctor. As a matter of fact, the very doctor she is suing made the referral.
Many people of libertarian inclinations, of whom I am one, have sympathy for a particular style of gay rights movement. Let and let live, we always say. If it isn’t hurting any one else, it is no business of the government’s.