News from the Becket Fund. Excerpt:
The Becket Fund undertook a survey of over 1000 state anti-discrimination laws to assess how those laws would affect conscientious objectors to same-sex marriage if same-sex marriage were legally recognized. We looked specifically at whether state laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, or marital status could be applied to penalize religious people and organizations with moral objections to same-sex marriage. The survey revealed that over 350 separate state anti-discrimination provisions would likely be triggered by recognition of same-sex marriage. The survey found that marital status and gender anti-discrimination statutes are more common than laws banning sexual orientation discrimination. Yet sexual orientation laws are also far more likely to feature religious or conscience exemptions than laws governing gender or marital status discrimination.Based on this data, we conclude that if same-sex marriage is recognized by courts or
legislatures, people and institutions who have conscientious objections to facilitating same-sex marriage will likely be sued under existing anti-discrimination laws--laws never intended for that purpose. Lawsuits will likely arise when religious people or religious organizations choose, based on their sincerely held religious beliefs, not to hire individuals in same-sex marriages, refuse to extend spousal benefits to same-sex spouses, refuse to make their property or services available for same-sex marriage ceremonies or other events affirming same-sex marriage, or refuse to provide otherwise available housing to same-sex couples. This wide-ranging conflict between governments and conscientious citizens would take years of litigation to resolve, assuming that it could be resolved.
If opposition to same-sex marriage is to be understood as pure bigotry, then no accomodation for religious believers will be made. This is what people have got to understand is at stake in this conflict. It is not a scare tactic, or a made-up charge: there really will be a substantial effect on traditional churches, synagogues, mosques and religious institutions if gay marriage is constitutionalized. The problem at this point is a conceptual one: Conor Friedersdorf, in a discussion about the Detroit bailout, makes a point relevant to the SSM discussion:
Conservatives and libertarians sometimes face a disadvantage in policy arguments. We're attuned to the indirect effects and unintended consequences of certain policies, whereas our liberal interlocutors concern themselves primarily with direct effects. Why is this a disadvantage? Because the liberal can say, "Look at David from Detroit, who is going to lose his job, and his home, if GM goes bankrupt." Whereas the best conservatives and libertarians can do is to say, "Somewhere in America there is an unknown person who will lose their job, and their home, if the automakers are bailed out, due to the inevitable effect of egregious economic inefficiencies that will course through the financial system."The person who is hurt in the liberal narrative and the one hurt in the conservative narrative are both real human beings. But the fact that the former is identifiable is often used by liberals as an emotional bludgeon. "How can you not back the bailout? David will lose his house!"
In the SSM debate, this is whence the familiar question: "How does my gay neighbor's marriage affect me?" -- the question carrying with it the implication that there is no direct effect, and therefore the direct effect on one's gay neighbors by denying them marriage is the more powerful claim. Nobody has stories of churches that will suffer a loss of religious liberty if SSM becomes the law of the land, because it hasn't happened yet. It's still an abstract threat to people. By the time we start seeing those stories, it will be too late. And besides, people in the news media are not inclined to worry overmuch about the loss of religious liberty in such matters. A colleague of mine in the editorial meeting this morning, in a discussion about Prop 8-related boycotts, said he didn't much care if "bigots" suffer a loss of business from their actions.
This scandalous situation from eight years ago in Massachusetts gives a preview of what I think more and more of us will be facing. Notice especially about what the civil liberties attorney Harvey Silverglate says about how the culture of the state, especially its media and legal culture, stacks the deck against free speech.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Well, this argument is at least more coherent than the "it will lead to people marrying their lizards and lamposts" argument or the "gay people are going to march into our schools and start teaching 'gay astronomy' and 'gay algebra'" argument.
I expect a generation of suits and counter-suits over the issue of same-sex marriage. The issues involved are multiple and complex, and feelings on both sides are unlikely to come down from their fever pitch any time soon. It is a little mysterious to me that religious people who oppose same-sex marriage are so concerned over the fragility of their cooalition and this impending epidemic of persecution. The success of their propositions is just one piece of evidence that these constituencies still wield quite a bit of power.
The core objection to same-sex marriage is a religious one. Conservative-minded religionists are convinced that homosexuality is a perversion, a lifestyle choice, and a bane on society. This flies in the face of nearly every scientific finding and nearly every sociological study, but we do live in a pluralistic society and freedom of speech is something we hold dear.
The loss of freedom of speech due to economic boycotts, like what is happening to pro-prop 8 companies in the wake of its passage is perfectly constitutional. The right to sell a commodity and the right to choose not to purchase it from an unamenable vendor both constitute free expression of speech. The evangelical community has a long history of organizing boycotts against companies that conflict with evangelical values. Prop 8 manger Ron Prentice's quote that is going around about boycotts against prop 8 donors amounting to "trampling on the rights of others" is dizzying to those of us who see same-sex marriage as an equal rights issue.
As to the issue of religious beliefs expressed within the confines of a religious body ... There is no question that any law passed in favor of marriage equality should include the strongest and most unambiguous language possible to protect church's from having to marry homosexuals or from expressing their interpretation of Scripture. I personally find such beliefs unfortunate, but it is my conviction is that it is not the desire of the average homosexual couple to be granted rights at the expense of conservative Christians. I think that this is a myth perpetuated by opponents of same-sex rights. However, there is the real danger of a self-predicted prophecy. The loudest voices against same-sex marriage really do seem to want to preach themselves into a corner as a matter of strategy; "I told you so" is always waiting on their breath.
Arguments like the one presented in Dreher's blog are right to stick to the parameters of the Constitution, no matter how dishonest I may find these arguments to be. What we should never forget is that, although religious speech is protected in America, America is not a theocracy. America is a melting-pot of ideologies and backgrounds. That is why the system of law must remain ostensibly secular. And from a secular point of view, heterosexuality and homosexuality is parallel. Homosexuality is not pedophilia or bestiality - acts that void consent. Since these two sexual constitutions are parallel, their recognition by the state should be equal. We tried "separate but equal" during the black Civil Rights era. It was a pantomime of equality. In Tony Campolo's book 'Red Letter Christians' he lists the rights routinely denied homosexual couples under the current laws of the land - basic rights such as hospital visitation and the intended execution of wills. Unless and until we grant marriage rights across the board, or civil unions across the board leaving marriage to religious bodies , things will not be equal. And that is wrong.
'are' parallel i should have said. but this is not about freedom of grammar
"Conservatives and libertarians sometimes face a disadvantage in policy arguments. We're attuned to the indirect effects and unintended consequences of certain policies, whereas our liberal interlocutors concern themselves primarily with direct effects."
I have the hardest time making headway with religious conservatives using this very same argument. The problem is that many religious people find themselves on the conservative side because they feel their religion is under attack, not because they're actually conservative.
If we applied the logic from above to gay marriage then we can easily see that the real problem is that marriage is regulated by the state. God ordains marriage not the state. Remove marriage from state regulation and the problem is solved. Inevitably someone will say "but what about my tax breaks" by which I respond "obviously your faith is rock solid."__
rr
Wedding ceremonies are religious in nature. People shouldn't be forced to participate or assist a religious ceremony (gay or otherwise) that goes against their religious convictions. For many people, that would include a "gay wedding."
You might be able to get away with that claim if you were a wedding photographer who only took pictures at, say, Episcopalian weddings, or Jewish weddings.
But normal wedding photographers take pictures at any sort of wedding, and don't even bother to learn the religions of the people getting married.
I'm not entirely certain how much 'religious discrimination' people providing services to churches can actually do. The churches themselves can discriminate all the want, but if someone went around wiring buildings for sound and was asked to wire, for example, a Satanist worship hall (Whatever that would be called. A temple?), I'm not entirely sure they could refuse.
Being paid to do a job that you've offered to do to others, that involves observing and doing non-religious stuff during a religious ceremony, is not actually the same as participating in a religious ceremony.
However, if wedding photographers now can refuse to photograph a gay civil union, it simply makes the matter moot in the other direction. They aren't suddenly going to have to start photographing them because they are technically 'weddings', because that sort of technicality would never work in court in the first place. (And, incidentally, I suspect that the term 'wedding', in places with civil unions, already applies to civil unions. You guys ran around defining 'marriage', not 'wedding'.)
Either they can refuse now, and could refuse if gay marriage was legal, or can't refuse now anyway, so it doesn't matter either way.
This is an old post but I noticed in reading through the comments that no one mentioned the disconnect between the title of the post "How same-sex marriage harms 1st Amendment liberties" and the actual substance of what the Becket Fund did.
The Becket Fund undertook a survey of over 1000 state anti-discrimination laws to assess how those laws would affect conscientious objectors to same-sex marriage if same-sex marriage were legally recognized. We looked specifically at whether state laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, or marital status could be applied to penalize religious people and organizations with moral objections to same-sex marriage.
The link doesn't even give five examples. Not a one. There are check boxes for which states have anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, and marital status.
Okay, laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation are going to apply even in cases where there is no same-sex marriage. Does that violate the First Amendment?
Oddly, the only thing I can conclude from this is that the Becket Fund thinks it'd be a good thing to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, and marital status.
"I'm sorry, we wanted a man." "We wanted a single girl." "We wanted a heterosexual."
You can't say those things in Colorado, where there is no same-sex marriage. You can't say those thing in Illinois, where there is no same-sex marriage. New Mexico, New York, New Jersey. You get the idea.
So is it that conservatives want to stop same-sex marriage or do they want to roll back civil rights protections?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.