We are used to political ads that lie. The First Amendment demands that the law tolerate them and probably demands that the bar tolerate lawyers who help make them.
But what do we do when political ads on radio and television also scare children about topics related to sex?
This political season, I am involved with a group of Republicans opposing a proposed amendment to the Minnesota constitution that would restrict the freedom to marry for persons of the same sex (state law already bans same sex marriage). Naturally, I am curious about radio ads run by supporters of the amendment, so one morning while driving my children to grade school I left the radio on to listen.
That was a big mistake.
The ad reported that after same sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, churches were sued, and that children were forced to learn about gay sex in schools.
This ad – aired on radio stations shortly before 8 am – has one foreseeable result: loud exclamations from the back seats of minivans across Minnesota from kids demanding to know whether they will be forced to learn about gay sex at school if the amendment does not pass.
My response: “No. Remember how I tell you it is important to tell the truth? Well, this is election season and unfortunately some adults lie to get people’s votes. This amendment has nothing to do with what is taught in schools, and kids in Massachusetts learn much the same things as kids learn in Minnesota. Our church opposes restricting the freedom to marry, and nothing about sex is taught in Sunday school. Churches also sometimes get sued, but not for anything having anything to do with the marriage amendment.”
And I decided to end it there. What I won’t tell my kids is that some of the largest settlements of child molestation lawsuits in the history of Massachusetts and other states have been paid out by religious organizations that staunchly oppose the freedom to marry and that also have spent millions of dollars to support amendments like this one. And the amendments won’t stop the lawsuits because it is hypocrisy not same sex marriage that caused the lawsuits.
Meanwhile, in a free country I have to live with these ads and the lawyers who help organize the campaigns that broadcast them. Regardless of what happens in the vote on this amendment, I hope the next generation of adults will remember what grade school children learn in Massachusetts and Minnesota: to be considerate of others and to tell the truth.
Richard, I support SSM and believe that it is appropriate that some churches and businesses will get sued in states where SSM is legalized. How far we go in accommodating anti-SSM beliefs in a pro-SSM state is an important issue and the courts are the natural place for that to be resolved. That's my normative comment. As for the factual side, is it true or not true that churches have been sued in Massachusetts following the legalization of SSM? A quick look around the internet suggests it's factually true. But perhaps I am wrong about that?
Posted by: John Steele | November 05, 2012 at 12:16 PM
Most of the litigation involves church affiliated organizations such as hospitals and universities that want to deny benefits to married employees, students, and patients not litigation against the churches themselves. Most states have a broad religious exemption for churches on these issues and of course lawyers on both sides will want to explore how far it goes. In a country where people are happy to litigate (and where we have no loser pays rule) people will sue over anything, but it is misleading to blame that on changes in marriage laws. And furthermore the ad does not reveal that the greatest liability exposure for churches that support these amendments has been their own hypocrisy on issues related to human sexuality. The half-truth about litigation, along with the outright lie about gay sex being taught in schools, comprise the falsehood.
Posted by: Richard W. Painter | November 05, 2012 at 12:36 PM
If my "most" you mean "not all," then the factual statement in the ad is true. Why not go the other way and say, "yes we can expect some churches to be sued after passage of SSM laws, and we have seen some churches sued after legalization of SSM, and that's not a bad thing because . . . "?
Posted by: John Steele | November 05, 2012 at 12:40 PM
Here is an example of a lawsuit:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/10/massachusetts-gay-couple-sues-church-over-nixed-house-sale_n_1870780.html
The church seeks to sell a house and refuses to sell it to a gay couple because the church fears they will celebrate gay marriages there. The causal link between this lawsuit and marriage laws is extremely remote. If this particular church sold the house to a gay couple the church would likely object to many things that could take place in the house regardless of the marriage laws. The legal issue is whether the church should have the right to refuse to sell real estate to persons whose activities violate religious principles, whether gambling, drinking, gay sex, sex outside or marriage or anything else. That is not a same sex marriage issue.
Posted by: Richard W. Painter | November 05, 2012 at 12:46 PM