The British Columbia government’s decision to test the legality of Canada’s 120-year-old polygamy law led to a shocking revelation for Karen and her two male partners. The 37-year-old Winnipeg-area mother, her husband of 15 years and a second male partner concede their arrangement is unconventional. She calls it a plural union based on equality, not religious ideas of male dominance. What she didn’t realize, until the B.C. court reference drew attention to the issue, was that they’re breaking the law by sharing a home. “This has been a real learning experience,” she says.

Karen, who doesn’t want her surname used in order to protect her children, is part of a constituency of polyamorists, one of many groups seeking standing in the B.C. Supreme Court. The case will determine if the polygamy law—Section 293 of the Criminal Code—is constitutional. It was triggered by the province’s failure to prosecute two polygamous bishops in the fundamentalist Mormon community of Bountiful, B.C., but its outcome could affect the rights of thousands.

Some 16 groups have submitted affidavits seeking permission to argue for or against 293 when a trial date is set—proving, if nothing else, that polygamy creates strange bedfellows. Some groups see the polygamy law as the foundation of the traditional family and a defence against the exploitation of girls forced into multiple marriage, as the province alleged happened in Bountiful. Others argue the law is unenforceable, does nothing to help the women of Bountiful, and that it imposes a moral code out of step with Canada’s modern, multicultural society. ...

Fromm’s group is uncomfortably in the same camp as the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association, which includes many gay and lesbian multiple partnerships. Vancouver lawyer John Ince, legal counsel for the group, and in a polyamorous relationship himself, says the case will determine only if plural relationships are legal. What flows from that—the rights of multiple partners to pensions, adoption or immigration sponsorship—are issues for future rulings many years, and many appeals, down the road, he said.

Labels: Canada, polyamory, polygamy, religion, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 12:01 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

A Catholic adoption society has unexpectedly won a High Court battle against legislation forcing it to consider homosexual couples as parents.

Catholic Care had said it would have to give up its work finding homes for children if it was made to comply with the new anti-discrimination legislation.

The Charity Commission had rejected its plea to an exemption under the Sexual Orientation Regulations but a High Court judge this morning allowed the adoption charity's appeal.

Mr Justice Briggs, sitting in London, ordered the commission to reconsider the case in the light of the principles set out in his judgment.

Catholic Care, which serves the dioceses of Leeds, Middlesbrough, and Hallam in South Yorkshire, was the last Catholic adoption charity to continue its fight against the equality legislation.

The Roman Catholic Church lost a battle against the regulations when they were introduced in 2006.

Labels: adoption, Catholic Church, discrimination law, gay parenting, religious liberty, United Kingdom

posted by Eve at 11:52 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Employees at Catholic Charities were told Monday that the social services organization is changing its health coverage to avoid offering benefits to same-sex partners of its workers -- the latest fallout from a bitter debate between District officials trying to legalize same-sex marriage and the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington. ...

The church faced two options with the approval of the new law, said Robert Tuttle, a George Washington University professor who studies the relationship between church and state. One choice was to expand the definition of domestic partner, as the Archdiocese in San Francisco did years ago, to include a parent, sibling or someone else in the household.

The second choice was to do what the Washington Archdiocese has done: eliminate benefits for all spouses.

"For decades, the church has been at the forefront of worker benefits, so this move cuts against their understanding of social justice and health benefits to all possible," Tuttle said. "But obviously, you can see they felt there was a real conflict between those values. They feel they weren't left with much of a choice."

Labels: Catholic Church, DC, gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Imapp Staff at 2:52 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

The Archdiocese of Washington has been battling the D.C. government for the right to discriminate against gays and lesbians since D.C.’s same-sex marriage legislation got rolling last year.

One major point of contention: Once gays and lesbians are allowed to marry, the Archdiocese—which employs plenty of locals through Catholic Charities—will be required to provide health benefits to same-sex spouses, an act which it says would fly in the face of the Catholic church’s teachings on homosexuality.

The solution? No spousal benefits for anybody.

Labels: Catholic Church, DC, gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 2:01 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

On Tuesday, Cardinal Francis George, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, gave a talk to nearly 12,000 students and faculty at Brigham Young University in Utah. The cardinal dedicated his speech to exhorting the two faiths to defend religious freedom and their place in the public square.

“In recent years, Catholics and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have stood more frequently side by side in the public square to defend human life and dignity,” said Cardinal George on Tuesday morning.

The cardinal gave his presentation, “Catholics and Latter-day Saints: Partners in the Defense of Religious Freedom,” at a BYU forum on Feb. 23, at the school's Marriott Center. Receiving a standing ovation at the end of his address, Cardinal George is believed to be the highest ranking Catholic official to ever speak at the Mormon university. ...

Cardinal George also addressed the opposition that Catholics and Mormons have faced for their joint advocacy of human rights and dignity, citing the response from Proposition 8 opponents in California as an example.

Labels: Catholic Church, LDS, Proposition 8, religion, religious liberty

posted by Imapp Staff at 4:29 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington has ended its 80-year-old foster-care program in the District rather than license same-sex couples, the first fallout from a bitter debate over the city's move to legalize same-sex marriage.

Catholic Charities, which runs more than 20 social service programs for the District, transferred its entire foster-care program -- 43 children, 35 families and seven staff members -- to another provider, the National Center for Children and Families. Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6), the D.C. Council member who chairs the Committee on Human Services, said he didn't know of any problems with the transfer, which happened Feb. 1. ...

Catholic Charities, which receives $20 million from the city, had sounded alarms in the run-up to the council vote, saying programs serving tens of thousands of people were in danger. Being forced to recognize same-sex marriage, church officials said, could make it impossible for the church to be a city contractor because Catholic teaching opposes same-sex marriage.

The church and some experts said the city's measure has narrower exemptions for religious groups than other same-sex marriage laws across the country, particularly when it comes to requiring benefits for the same-sex partners of employees.

City officials knew of no other faith-based groups that said their city contracts were in jeopardy.

Labels: adoption, Catholic Church, DC, gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 10:21 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Adoption is arguably one of the Christian social ministries most central to evangelical theology. It has—to a greater extent than church positions on issues such as abortion and marriage—avoided becoming entangled in politics. Until now.

A foster dad's court challenge to a Florida law banning adoption by gays and lesbians has made headlines in recent months. So has a proposed same-sex marriage law in the District of Columbia that the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington warned could force it to cancel its social service programs, including adoption.

At the federal level, U.S. Rep. Pete Stark introduced a bill in October dubbed the "Every Child Deserves a Family Act." The California Democrat's proposal immediately drew the ire of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance (IRF). IRF claims the proposed law could run "roughshod over the convictions of many faith-based adoption agencies" and "require every state to forbid every agency that it licenses from preferring mother-father families over gay families or single parents." ...

On the other hand, voters in Arkansas last year passed a referendum banning unmarried couples from adopting or fostering children—a direct attack on gay parenting. Gov. Mike Beebe, a Democrat and active member of an Episcopal Church, voiced concern in November that the law hinders the state's ability to recruit qualified parents.

Labels: adoption, Arkansas, Catholic Church, Christianity Today, DC, Florida, gay parenting, Marriage, religious liberty, single parenting

posted by Eve at 5:33 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...But the result seems to me to likely violate the First Amendment (though there’s no precedent precisely on point).

[1. Compelled Speech.] Photography is an art, and Huguenin is an artist. It may not be high art, but it embodies a wide range of artistic choices (especially since she says she takes a “photojournalist” approach, rather than just doing normal staged photos). And though she sells the art to its subjects, that is of course part of a long and continuing tradition in the arts, including painting and sculpture, as well as photography. Certainly many of the works protected by the First Amendment (books, newspapers, movies, and the like) were created for money and distributed for money.

Yet the New Mexico government is now telling Huguenin that she must create art works that she does not choose to create. [...]

For whatever it’s worth, Huguenin also says she exercises political judgment in deciding what to photograph (for instance, she reports that she refuses to make photographs that put horror films in a positive light, or to take photographs that positively portray abortion, pornography, or nudity, as well as same-sex marriage). I don’t think that sort of political selectivity should be required for photographers to be protected as artists, but it seems to me to highlight the scope of the artist’s judgment, and the artist’s constitutional right to exercise such judgment (just as a bookstore has the right to choose which books to stock).

Consider also a hypothetical analogy: Say that instead of Willock’s trying to hire a photographer, Willock was trying to hire a solo freelance writer (or a writer in a two-person freelancing partnership) to write materials for Willock’s (hypothetical) same-sex marriage planning company. The writer refused on the grounds that she didn’t want to promote such a company.

I take it the law would cover the writer as much as it would cover the photographer (why wouldn’t it?). Yet wouldn’t requiring writers — even writers of press releases and Web sites — to write words that express views they reject violate the First Amendment? And if not, what’s the difference between that and requiring photographers to take photographs that implicitly but strongly express views they reject? (Wedding photographs, of course, express views celebrating the event being photographed.) ...

[2. Religious Exemptions:] [And] the decision may also violate the photographer’s religious freedom rights under the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Labels: discrimination law, gay marriage, New Mexico, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 10:29 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

The D.C. Council voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to legalize same-sex marriage in the District, a key step in a process that could enable gay couples to marry in the nation's capital by the spring.

After months of debate, the council passed the legislation 11 to 2 after a lively discussion that elicited passionate statements from members about the historical significance of their action. ...

Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), a key sponsor of the bill, said he may still "tweak" the bill to try to accommodate the [Catholic] Church before the final vote, scheduled for Dec. 15. But Mendelson and other members indicated Tuesday that they are not likely to make new broad exemptions.

"Marriage is just not about two individuals who want to marry. It requires that . . . every third party recognize that couple being married," Mendelson said. "Exemptions are a very troublesome slope because it undoes what we are trying to do here."

Susan Gibbs, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said that if a compromise is not reached, the Church will continue to provide services but with fewer resources, because it will no longer be able to bid on city contracts.

"We are just asking for a bill that would balance the city's interest in legalizing same-sex marriage and religious groups' interest in following their faith teachings," Gibbs said.

Other religious leaders are turning their attention to a potential court battle over whether the city should allow a public vote on whether to ban same-sex marriage.

Two weeks ago, the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics ruled that city laws prohibit a public vote because it would discriminate against gay men and lesbians. Jackson and several other opponents have filed suit in D.C. Superior Court seeking to reverse the election board's decision. Jackson noted that last month voters in Maine overturned a same-sex marriage law that had been approved by that state's legislature.

Labels: Catholic Church, DC, discrimination law, gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 7:58 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Conservative Christian leaders unveiled a declaration Friday calling on Christians not to comply with rules and laws forcing them to accept abortion, same-sex marriage and other ideals that go against their religious doctrines.

The declaration urges Christians to practice civil disobedience to defend their convictions, even though some signers of the document backed away from the strong language. ...

"We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them," the declaration says. It lists the "fundamental truths" as the "sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and the rights of conscience and religious liberty."

The declaration is signed by more than 125 Orthodox, Catholic and evangelical leaders. Other leaders at the news conference at the National Press Club included Cardinal Justin Rigali, outgoing chairman of the U.S. Catholic bishops' Committee for Pro-Life Activities; Pentecostal leader Harry Jackson, pastor of a Beltsville church; and evangelical activist Tony Perkins. Other signers include evangelical leader and Watergate-era figure Chuck Colson and academics Timothy George and Robert George.

The leaders are urging the public to sign the online document.

Labels: abortion, Christianity, gay marriage, Marriage, religion, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 3:58 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...To use a concrete example: should a Massachusetts Catholic court clerk who objects to same-sex marriage be allowed not to process a marriage license for a gay couple (perhaps passing the couple along to another clerk who will do the job)?

There are at least two slippery-slopes to worry about when answering this question. First, if we make accommodations for, say, Catholicism, must we make accommodations for any religion? Some religions are pretty screwy (although I think Corvinianism is pretty cool).

And what about atheists? Why should conscience exemptions only apply to the religious?

Second, if we make accommodation for objections to same-sex marriage, why not other religious and moral convictions? Suppose the clerk’s religion prohibits divorce and re-marriage, or interfaith marriage, or marriages not performed by the One True Church. Should she be allowed to decline to issue licenses in those cases as well?

I am not suggesting that these accommodations would all be equally valid. The point is, rather, that deciding which are and which aren’t is thorny legal and moral territory.

Meanwhile, it’s worth noting religious inconsistency on these questions. One never hears about clerks refusing to grant marriage licenses to divorcees, despite the Bible’s clear condemnation of divorce—the same Bible frequently cited in the gay-rights debate.

Labels: gay marriage, John Corvino, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 3:36 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...Catholic Charities and the Archdiocese of Washington are committed to continuing to serve the people of the District as we have for many decades. That includes partnerships such as St. Martin's. Unfortunately, the D.C. Council is considering legislation that could end these kinds of partnerships.

It doesn't need to be that way. While we do not agree with the council on redefining marriage, we recognize that it is firmly committed to opening marriage to homosexual couples. We are asking that new language be developed that more fairly balances different interests -- those of the city to redefine marriage and those of faith groups so that they can continue to provide services without compromising their deeply held religious teachings and beliefs. The archdiocese has not been alone in requesting broader language. Other groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington and nationally recognized legal scholars all called for stronger protections for religious freedom in their testimony on the original bill. ...

The archdiocese and Catholic Charities are committed to continuing to provide services in the District. Despite the headlines, there has been no threat or ultimatum to end services, just a simple recognition that the new requirements by the city for religious organizations to recognize same-sex marriages in their policies could restrict our ability to provide the same level of services as we do now. This is so because the District requires Catholic Charities to certify its compliance with city laws when applying for contracts and grants. This includes contracts for homeless services, mental health services, foster care and more. Since Catholic Charities cannot comply with city mandates to recognize and promote same-sex marriages, the city would withhold contracts and licenses.

Each year, 68,000 people in the District rely on Catholic Charities for shelter, nutrition, medical and legal care, job training, immigration assistance and more. This assistance is offered to whoever needs it, regardless of race, religion, gender, nationality or sexual orientation. Many of the programs are offered in partnership with the city, which turns to Catholic Charities and other ministries when it cannot provide social services on its own. Catholic Charities has a proven track record of high-quality service, supported through caring, qualified staff, thousands of dedicated volunteers and millions of dollars in financial support from parishioners all over the region. This legislation won't end Catholic Charities' services, but it would reduce unnecessarily the resources available for outreach.

Labels: Catholic Church, DC, gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 3:22 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

There's a bit of a hubbub going on in the District of Columbia of late. The City Council is weighing a sweeping gay rights move, bundling together gay marriage, gay adoption, partners' rights, and whatnot, and the Catholic Church -- as is to be expected -- is resistant.

Resistant to the point where they say they will simply pull the plug on their entire charitable works in the city should it pass.

Critics are denouncing the Church (as is their wont), saying that the Church must be bluffing, that the Church is overreacting, that the Church is being hypocritical because it hasn't made the same threats in other places where gay marriage has passed, and it's all a big to-do about nothing, because the law explicitly says the Church doesn't have to perform gay marriages if it doesn't want to.

They're right on that last point. They're wrong on every single other one. ...

One doesn't have to be Catholic to see the value of the Church's charitable works. One doesn't have to subscribe to Church teachings to respect their right to abide by them as they see fit. And one doesn't even have to be a believer to see the threat to the common good being posed by this move by the DC City Council.

And that's coming from an agnostic gay marriage supporter who is still uncertain as to whether the Catholic Church has been a net boon or bane to modern civilization.

Labels: Catholic Church, DC, gay marriage, religion, religious liberty

posted by Imapp Staff at 11:50 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it would be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city won't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."

Several D.C. Council members said the Catholic Church is trying to erode the city's long-standing laws protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination.

The clash escalates the dispute over the same-sex marriage proposal between the council and the archdiocese, which has generally stayed out of city politics.

Catholic Charities, the church's social services arm, is one of dozens of nonprofit organizations that partner with the District. It serves 68,000 people in the city, including the one-third of Washington's homeless people who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church. City leaders said the church is not the dominant provider of any particular social service, but the church pointed out that it supplements funding for city programs with $10 million from its own coffers.

"All of those services will be adversely impacted if the exemption language remains so narrow," Jane G. Belford, chancellor of the Washington Archdiocese, wrote to the council this week.

The church's influence seems limited. In separate interviews Wednesday, council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) referred to the church as "somewhat childish." Another council member, David A. Catania (I-At Large), said he would rather end the city's relationship with the church than give in to its demands.

Labels: Catholic Church, DC, gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 12:05 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

The hearings are beginning on a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the District, and the D.C. Council is on track to vote on a final bill by December. Will it take the steps necessary to protect religious people and groups from any unintended consequences from this act?

As it stands, the same-sex marriage bill before the council contains three clauses purporting to protect religious liberty. But a careful analysis makes clear that these clauses are woefully inadequate and provide protection that is more illusory than real.

Under the bill, clergy who refuse to perform same-sex marriages receive ersatz protection because they are already protected by the U.S. Constitution. Religious organizations retain "exclusive control over [their] own religious doctrine," as "guaranteed by the First Amendment."

What new protection the bill gives with one hand (exemption for "religious" and "nonprofit organizations" from antidiscrimination laws relating to the provision of "services, accommodations, facilities or goods"), it takes away with the other (by withdrawing this exemption for services, accommodations, facilities or goods made available to "the general public").

Here's what the bill leaves out:

-- It provides no meaningful protection against a loss of government benefits for refusing to recognize same-sex marriages.

-- It provides no meaningful protection for individual dissenters (other than authorized celebrants) who have a religious objection to facilitating same-sex marriage ceremonies, such as caterers, musicians and photographers.

-- It provides no meaningful protection to religious organizations from private lawsuits under the city's anti-discrimination laws. ...

Some charge that religious accommodations are nothing more than government-authorized gay animus. In this view, any objection to assisting with same-sex marriages must reflect anti-gay sentiment. Yet many people have no objection generally to providing services to gays but would object to directly facilitating same-sex marriages. For them, marriage ceremonies have religious significance because marriage is a religious institution, and weddings are sacraments. Without explicit protection, these individuals and groups will face a cruel choice: their consciences or their livelihoods.

Labels: DC, gay marriage, religious liberty, Robin F. Wilson

posted by Eve at 9:00 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

I’ve followed Maine’s contentious political battle over Question 1 but did not feel that it was my place to enter it. But a letter I co-wrote, urging the governor and Legislature to include specific religious liberty protections in Maine’s same-sex marriage law, has become a centerpiece in the debate about repealing same-sex marriage. ...

Let me be clear, however, it is possible to recognize same-sex marriage without treading on religious liberty. One right need not come at the expense of the other. But this requires careful crafting of protections for conscientious objectors.

I and others urged the governor and Legislature to enact a concrete, legislative solution that avoids the otherwise inevitable conflicts between same-sex marriage laws and religious freedom. The narrow exemption we proposed would clarify that people and organizations may refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings if doing so would violate deeply held beliefs, provided the refusal creates no hardship for the couple seeking the service. ...

The kind of careful, robust, religious protections that we urged the governor and Legislature to include in Maine’s new law are part of the law in Vermont, Connecticut and New Hampshire. These states protect religious organizations from suit under the state’s anti-discrimination statutes and provide protection from exclusion from certain government programs. While these laws didn’t address every important religious liberty issue, they tackled far more than Maine.

Labels: gay marriage, Maine, religious liberty, Robin F. Wilson

posted by Imapp Staff at 4:00 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

In a 4-3 decision delivered on Oct. 10, 2008, the state Supreme Court ushered in a new era in the state when it ruled that same-sex couples have a right to marry.

Nearly one year later, state Sen. Andrew McDonald said it's a milestone worth celebrating. "Connecticut can mark this anniversary secure in the knowledge that all of us have been enriched by eliminating discriminatory aspects of our law,'' the Stamford Democrat said in a phone interview this afternoon.

"In many respects, the most remarkable aspect of the anniversary is that it is such a non-issue for the vast majority of Connecticut citizens. They're not threatened by marriage equality," McDonald added.

But Peter Wolfgang of the Family Institute of Connecticut sees the events of the past year differently. The court case, Kerrigan et al v. the Commissioner of Public Health, helped spark a wave of religious intolerance at the state Capitol, he said.

"There's a changed environment when it comes to religious liberties in the state of Connecticut,'' Wolfgang said. Since the court ruling, it's been "open season" on religious freedom, he said.

Wolgang cites what he views as three attempts by state lawmakers to undermine that freedom: a proposal to change the governance of the Catholic church, an investigation by state ethics officials into what it initially called lobbying by the church and the official codification of the court's ruling.

The church governance bill was pulled, the ethics complaint dropped and the codification bill ultimately included an exemption for religious organizations opposed to same-sex marriage.

"We won all three but that these attacks were even launched is a cause for grave concern,'' Wolfgang said.

Labels: Connecticut, gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 3:26 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

BARRING any intervention by the Congress, it appears the District soon will join a handful of states that allow homosexual couples to marry.

D.C. Council member David Catania, one of two openly gay legislators, is poised to introduce next week legislation that will permit same-sex marriages while allowing religious organizations to decline to solemnize such unions. There already are 10 co-introducers or sponsors. ...

Further, the bill would permit religious organizations to discriminate against homosexual couples regarding use of those groups’ goods, services and facilities—unless the organizations make those “available for purchase, rental or use to members of the general public.” So, if a church only permits its members to use its hall, for example, then it wouldn’t be required to rent to a gay or lesbian couple.

Robert King, an advisory neighborhood commissioner in Ward 5 and a member of the Stand for Marriage Coalition, told TBR that the “war is on.” The coalition is trying to secure a ballot initiative that would define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The group filed its request last month. But the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics seems deliberately to have delayed the process, scheduling a hearing for late October.

If the council enacts its legislation before the ballot initiative is resolved, the Stand for Marriage Coalition will suffer a defeat even before it could get started. It would be forced to revise its request to a referendum. (An initiative creates law, while a referendum repeals existing law.)

A referendum cannot violate the city’s human rights laws. A D.C. Superior Court judge earlier this year ruled in a separate matter that permitting a referendum that would repeal the newly passed law mandating the city recognized same-sex marriages legally performed in other states would be a violation of the Human Rights Act. Marriage equality proponents believe that the elections board and the courts will make the same ruling regarding a ballot initiative.

Opponents’ only ace is Congress. They already have allies in the House and Senate. But that may be insufficient to overcome support for same-sex marriage among Democrats. It doesn’t look good for opponents.

Labels: DC, gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 9:36 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Insisting on their religious and academic freedoms, Catholic educational institutions are seeking exemption from a provision in the new Magna Carta of Women banning the dismissal of unwed mothers from employment or school.

Monsignor Gerardo Santos, national president of the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP), said the CEAP would ask that a provision on such an exemption be inserted into the new law’s implementing rules and regulations. ...

Women’s rights activists have said that under the new law, unwed mothers who are kicked out can file a civil case and sue for damages while government officials who dismiss them can be sanctioned under administrative and civil service laws.

Santos insisted on the Catholic schools’ right to have an unwed pregnant student or employee go on leave “after due process,” or to enforce other disciplinary action.

Labels: Catholic Church, culture, discrimination law, gender differences, out-of-wedlock births, Philippines, religion, religious liberty, single parenting

posted by Eve at 3:54 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

We shouldn't have to choose between gay rights and religious liberties.

The media often report on the very real pain of same-sex couples unable to validate their relationships through marriage. But reporters almost never discuss the full implications of same-sex marriage, or the underlying aims of some of its supporters.

Privately, many of my fellow professors argue that a religiously affiliated college or university should receive no government funding for student loans or faculty research until gay and lesbian couples can wed at the campus chapel, synagogue or mosque. ...

Recently, such secular intolerance made me a conscientious objector in this particular culture war. At a political science conference, I had the temerity to argue that, rather than refusing to hold our conventions in states without same-sex marriage, we professors should tolerate a wide range of views. Given the reaction, I'm just glad I don't need a grant from any of the professors who heard it.

Labels: gay marriage, professional associations, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 9:22 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Conservative leader David Cameron has been accused of contributing to the closure of Roman Catholic adoption agencies in order to win homosexual voters.

In 2007 Mr Cameron voted for new ‘gay rights’ laws forcing adoption groups to consider gay couples as potential adopters without any protection for religious agencies.

Newspaper columnist Gerald Warner says the Conservative leader had “calculated that it was worthwhile insulting Catholics (8 per cent of the electorate) to please homosexuals (0.8 per cent) because he believed (correctly) that the former do not constitute a bloc vote and imagined (incorrectly) that the latter do”.

The new laws have now seen most of these agencies – known for their work with ‘hard to place’ children – either cut ties with the Roman Catholic Church or drop out of adoption work.

Labels: adoption, Catholic Church, discrimination law, religious liberty, United Kingdom

posted by Imapp Staff at 7:11 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

In Britain last Thursday, the House of Lords, by a vote of 186-133, deleted from the proposed Coroners and Justice Bill section 61 which would have done away with a statutory free speech defense to the crime of inciting homophobic hatred. The defense is found in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which outlaws inciting hatred on the ground of sexual orientation, but goes on to provide:

In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be
threatening or intended to stir up hatred.

Labels: homosexuality, religious liberty, United Kingdom

posted by Imapp Staff at 7:07 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

A gay man has filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal against a Catholic bishop after he was removed from his volunteer job as an altar server because of his sexual orientation.

The case is the latest involving the human rights tribunal to address whether Church doctrine should be subject to review by a secular body.

Jim Corcoran, who owns a high-end resort and spa near Cobourg, was asked this year to step down from his role at St. Michael's Church after 12 of his fellow parishioners complained to the Diocese of Peterborough.

"In their letter the group had tried to establish that I am married to my same-sex partner, that I am a homosexual leading an open homosexual lifestyle, and they implied I may be in relationship [with my priest]," Mr. Corcoran wrote.

"[The parishioners] have used their distaste towards homosexuality to limit my right to serve the Church."

In an interview, Mr. Corcoran said he was told by his parish priest in April that he and his partner would have to end their altar duties.

He said it was Bishop Nicola De Angelis's decision and the priest had no choice.

Mr. Corcoran added that he and his partner of 19 years have been chaste for years, which makes the decision to remove them even more difficult to comprehend. (Mr. Corcoran's partner does not want to be named and did not file a complaint with the tribunal.) ...

Mr. Corcoran said he is seeking $20,000 from each parishioner and $25,000 from the bishop. He said he wants the money to be donated to a charity of his choice.

Labels: Canada, Catholic Church, homosexuality, religious liberty

posted by Imapp Staff at 5:12 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

A top constitutional law professor who served as a surrogate for then-presidential candidate Barack Obama told CNSNews.com that he would like to see “marriage” replaced in the legal sense with a neutral “civil license.”

“As awkward as it may be, I think the way to untie the state from this problem is to create a new terminology that they would apply to everyone--straight or gay--call it a ‘civil license,’ said Douglas Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University and author of “Can a Catholic Support Him?’

“The net effect of that, would be to turn over--quite appropriately, it seems to me, the concept of marriage to churches and a church understanding,” Kmiec said.

Kmiec said that one of the things that motivated the passage of California’s Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, “was a genuine concern on the part of religious believers--including myself--that the previous California ruling was not addressing what that would mean for religious practice.”

“After the state of California acknowledged same-sex marriage, would that mean, for example, that churches like the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church, which don’t acknowledge those relationships as a marriage by virtue of their scriptural and theological teaching--would they be subject to penalty? Would they lose public benefits? Would they be subject to lawsuits based upon some theory of discrimination?” Kmiec said his idea would address those questions.

“One of the possible outcomes that would be good in this case, would be if the state got out of the marriage business, did their licensing under a different name--which, of course, would satisfy the state’s interests for purposes of distribution of taxation and
property, but then the question of who can and cannot be married would be entirely determined in your voluntarily chosen faith community.

“We know that religions differ as to how they see that question,” Kmiec said. “But it
seems to me that would be a nice way to reaffirm the significance of marriage as a religious concept--because that is a much fuller concept than just civil marriage.” ...

But Princeton University law professor Robert George, who is also a top constitutional scholar--and a Catholic academic--said that Kmiec’s idea would do away with the public role of marriage--and banish it to the religious “ghetto.”

Labels: beyond marriage, civil unions, gay marriage, government interest in marriage, Marriage, religion, religious liberty

posted by Imapp Staff at 8:58 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

A gay rights advocacy group claims that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Maine is violating tax rules by helping a referendum campaign that would repeal the state’s new same-sex marriage law.

The Empowering Spirits Foundation said its challenge was filed at an Internal Revenue Service office in Dallas. The San Diego-based group said the diocese is engaging in political activity by collecting signatures for the referendum, violating IRS rules applying to nonprofits.

The ballot question would overturn Maine’s gay marriage law. Gay marriage foes need the signatures of at least 55,087 registered voters to get the question on the ballot. The petitioners have until three months after the Legislature adjourns, which is expected to happen in mid-June, to collect the signatures.

IRS policy allows the diocese to participate in the campaign and help collect signatures, said Marc Mutty, public affairs director for the diocese. He rejected the IRS challenge as a “bogus attempt to sidetrack the campaign.”

Leonard Cole, a Portland attorney who specializes in tax and nonprofit issues, suggested that the church’s involvement could put it at odds with IRS rules that restrict lobbying by tax-exempt nonprofits.

“It’s hard for me to imagine how you seek someone’s signature on a petition without it arguably at least being an attempt to influence their vote once the measure was on the ballot,” Cole said.

Labels: gay marriage, Maine, religion, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 5:07 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...The deliberations in New Hampshire could have implications for New York, where the legalization of same-sex marriage hovers on the brink without the kind of protection for religious groups that Mr. Lynch demanded. New Hampshire’s experience may also affect current debates in the District of Columbia and Rhode Island, or even in California, if the State Supreme Court there rules next week either to overturn Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage that passed last November or to uphold the marriages performed for 18,000 same-sex couples before November.

Opponents of same-sex marriage have frequently said it threatens to penalize members of the clergy who refuse to solemnize such unions or who preach against them. Legal experts almost unanimously dismiss such alarms. Refusals to officiate or to mute a religious doctrine, they say, are solidly protected by the First Amendment.

But that is not where the real issue lies. What would be the impact of legalizing same-sex marriage on a broader range of religious institutions? ...

One obvious reason for supporters of same-sex marriage [to oppose conscience protections] is the worry that religious exemptions could block same-sex couples from obtaining the wedding services they need, including even a marriage license from a local official.

Recognizing this danger, Ms. Wilson and her colleagues have argued in letters to officials that a government employee should not be allowed to “act as a choke point on the path to marriage.” Nor would these scholars allow refusals of wedding-related services on religious grounds when same-sex couples might suffer “substantial hardship,” though not “mere inconvenience or symbolic harm,” because similar services or accommodations were unavailable from others.

Labels: gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Imapp Staff at 4:27 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

I have written several times that there should be accommodation for religious conservatives who have conscientious objections to recognizing same-sex marriages. Religious exemptions from antidiscrimination laws are fairly costless, I’ve argued: as long as the religious dissenters are idiosyncratic outliers – and they generally will be, based on the scant number of accommodation claims we’ve seen – they’ll have no effect on gay people’s opportunities, and so they can harmlessly be left to live out their ideals in peace.

This has elicited the following objection from several friends: why do you want to accommodate bigots? The issue is now being squarely presented in New Hampshire, where opponents of religious accommodation are now ready to let same-sex marriage die in that state rather than, as one supporter has put it, “enshrine homophobia into the statutes of the New Hampshire Legislature.”

What is bigotry, anyway, and why is it a bad thing? The answer to this question will provide an answer to my skeptical friends, and also show why the legislators resisting religious accommodations in New Hampshire are sadly mistaken in their priorities. ...

If they can be rendered harmless, antigay bigots, even the morally reprehensible ones, will be just like the guy with the pins and the dolls. Nasty, maybe (though I know people on that side of the political divide who, I’m convinced, are honestly doing their best to pursue the right as it is given to them to see the right). But why is it important for the law to beat up on them?

Labels: culture, gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 4:00 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...The Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life turns to professors Robert W. Tuttle and Ira "Chip" Lupu of The George Washington University Law School to discuss how some states are trying to reconcile these and other potential conflicts between the legalization of gay marriage and the free exercise of religion.

Labels: gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 4:46 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Same-sex couples who hope to marry in New Hampshire will remain in limbo for now, after the House yesterday narrowly voted down an amendment that Gov. John Lynch had termed crucial to winning his support for legalizing gay marriage in New Hampshire.

The fight isn't over: After nixing the Lynch amendment 188-186, the House yesterday voted to seek a House-Senate committee to hammer out a compromise. The Lynch amendment spelled out the rights of religious groups and their employees to refuse to partake in same-sex weddings. Backers of same-sex marriage broadcast optimism last night that an agreement could be reached. ...

Lynch's language provided that religious organizations and their employees can refrain from participating in any wedding that violates their faith without fear of lawsuits or state-imposed penalty. Opponents of same-sex marriage attacked the Lynch amendment as rushed, incomplete or unnecessary, saying it would provide no protections that aren't already provided constitutionally or in state law. Supporters said the language would clarify such protections.

Labels: gay marriage, New Hampshire, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 4:23 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

A bill that has raised the spectre of Alberta parents hauling teachers before human rights tribunals is an offensive attempt to placate ultra right-wing conservatives, says the man whose legal crusade forced the province to rewrite its human rights legislation.

This weekend, Alberta's teachers slammed proposed new rules that would give parents sweeping rights to pull kids from classes on touchy subjects, and be notified in advance when lessons focus on religion, sexuality or sexual orientation.

The new measures were included as part of Bill 44, which enshrines gay rights in the province 11 years after they were imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada in a case that caused an ugly backlash in Alberta. In an interview yesterday, Alberta Culture and Community Spirit Minister Lindsay Blackett admitted that the provincial caucus wrote the school provisions into the bill as an olive branch to religious groups and conservative voters who might be offended by the province's move to codify gay rights.

Labels: Canada, religious liberty, schools

posted by Eve at 4:17 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...Forcing clergy to officiate at gay weddings is not an issue, as informed advocates on both sides know. Certainly forcing them to do so "in violation of their [constitutional] right to free exercise of religion" has never been on the table. This provision, on its face, restates protection already guaranteed in the state and federal constitutions. It might, I suppose, be interpreted to exempt religious objectors from the otherwise neutral requirement to officiate at any weddings recognized under state law, which might not be an unconstitutional imposition under Employment Div. v. Smith.

But even if it accomplishes that, the provision is narrower than the religious-liberty protection included in Connecticut's SSM bill last week and much narrower than that proposed last week by five prominent religious-liberty advocates. Whether any additional protection is really needed in an SSM bill, as opposed to state and federal antidiscrimination laws, is a separate question.

Labels: gay marriage, New Hampshire, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 11:20 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

As a growing number of states stand poised to pass same-sex marriage laws, they should consider this: It's possible to legalize gay marriage without infringing on religious liberty. But it takes careful crafting of robust religious protections. And no state has gotten that right yet.

The country is deeply divided on same-sex marriage. But once it is recognized legally, all kinds of people -- clerks in the local registrar's office, photographers, owners of reception halls, florists -- might not have the legal right to refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings, even if doing so would violate deeply held beliefs. Religious organizations could be affected too. For example, a Catholic university that offers married-student housing might have to rent to married same-sex couples or risk violating state law. ...

Last month, Connecticut and Vermont became the first states to pass conscience protection for religious dissenters in their same-sex marriage laws. Both states provide that religious groups "shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if the request ... is related to the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage." Both also bar civil suits by people denied such wedding-related services. Connecticut went even further. In that state, a "religious organization" providing adoption services may continue to place children only with heterosexual married couples as long as it gets no government money. Thus, in Connecticut, unlike in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities will not have to close its doors or face litigation threats.

As important as these exemptions for organizations are, states still weighing same-sex marriage should do better. Wedding advisors, photographers, bakers, caterers and other service providers who prefer to step aside from same-sex ceremonies for religious reasons also need explicit protection. Some have argued that gay-marriage laws do not need such guarantees because they don't require religious objectors to do any particular thing. But new laws are interpreted in light of existing statutes, and Vermont and Connecticut -- as well as all six states still considering same-sex marriage -- have laws on the books prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Because of those laws, many people could have to choose between conscience and livelihood.

Labels: gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Imapp Staff at 4:20 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...The exemption clause, the article goes on to report, applies to explicitly religious businesses and organizations, so that, for example, the Knights of Columbus would not be required to rent their halls out for same-sex wedding receptions, and Catholic Charities could restrict adoption to traditional families. However,

The amendment does not permit individuals and businesses such as florists or justices of the peace to claim the religious exemption, something the church and the Family Institute had sought.

“No individual gets to pick and chose which constitutional right” they will respect, said Sen. Andrew McDonald, a Democrat from Stamford. “That’s not right.”

So we can only exercise freedom of conscience and religious conviction collectively? If something is “not right” for the individual, how long will it be right for the institution?

Labels: gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 12:00 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...If addressing religious-liberty concerns facilitates and hastens the passage of SSM laws without sacrificing any substantial rights of gay families, that's a plus for SSM advocates. But first I'd want to hear from experts in antidiscrimination law about the possible effects. I'd also have lots of questions about the proposal. The four that occur to me right away are these:

(1) Would its application to "any individual" include government employees acting in their capacity as government employees and providing benefits and services to married same-sex couples? If so, I assume this would mean that a state employee could refuse to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, refuse to participate in any way in giving benefits under state law available to married same-sex couples, refuse to serve as a judge in a divorce, tort, or any other proceeding implicating their marital status, and so on. Is that right?

(2) Could "an individual" who continually harrasses or discriminates against a co-worker or subordinate on religious grounds be disciplined (reassigned, fired, demoted) by his employer attempting to comply with the state's employment antidiscrimination law? Or would that be a "penalty" imposed "under the laws" of the state?

(3) Would the exemption affect any claim of sexual-orientation discrimination under state law that a person would have had independent of the recognition of the person's same-sex marriage? For example, would it allow a religious employer or landlord otherwise covered by a law forbidding sexual orientation discrimination to discriminate against a gay person (by excluding the person from a job or an apartment) once that person marries a same-sex partner? I assume the intent is to allow religious objectors to discriminate solely on the grounds of the marital status of a person in a same-sex marriage but not on the grounds of the person's sexual orientation. Connecticut already has religious exemptions in its sexual-orientation non-discrimination laws, and the authors say this proposal is "modeled" on such exemptions. But as I think they'd acknowledge, it is broader than Connecticut's exemptions in several ways.

(4) Would the exemption protect those who objected on religious grounds to other marriages, e.g., interracial marriages, interreligious marriages, and second marriages following divorce? The text is broad enough to encompass any sincere religious objection to any marriage, but its adoption and placement in a bill meant to authorize same-sex marriages might lead to a narrower construction.

These questions are addressed initially to the authors, but not exclusively to them. Their understanding won't control the interpretation of the statute they draft.

One can imagine many more questions about the proposal. How do we know when a belief is "religious" rather than a deeply help moral or philosophical one? How do we know when a religious belief is "sincere" as a opposed to pretextual? (In this regard, it's easier to imagine an individual crafting his supposed religious beliefs to fit the exemption in response to a lawsuit than it would be to imagine a religious business or association credibly doing so.) Do we want courts deciding when a person's religious beliefs have been "violated" rather than been made less comfortable? But while these are good questions, for the most part they do not seem particular to this proposal. They're endemic in religious liberty law and protection.

Finally, I'd be interested in the reaction to this proposal from readers, both supporters and opponents of SSM.

If a you're a supporter of SSM, could you live with this proposal, especially if it made the passage of SSM bills more likely and more likely to be soon? Would you support any special religious-liberty protection in the context of an SSM bill?

If you're an opponent of SSM, and although you may continue to oppose SSM on other grounds, would it at least satisfy any religious-liberty concerns you might have? If not, would any proposal be sufficient to satisfy your religious-liberty concerns?

Labels: Dale Carpenter, gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 11:50 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Faith organizations and individuals who view homosexuality as sinful and refuse to provide services to gay people are losing a growing number of legal battles that they say are costing them their religious freedom.

The lawsuits have resulted from states and communities that have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those laws have created a clash between the right to be free from discrimination and the right to freedom of religion, religious groups said, with faith losing. They point to what they say are ominous recent examples....

Labels: gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 12:26 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

A little-noticed clause in the gay marriage bill recently passed in Vermont offers hope that the gay marriage trend may finally be starting to incorporate some of the concerns and needs of traditionally religious Americans as it spreads across the country.

Echoing the names of gay marriage bills in other states, the Vermont law is entitled "An Act to Protect Religious Freedom and Recognize Equality in Civil Marriage." Such titles in other states are Orwellian - those acts only purport to protect churches from having to marry same-sex couples, which is unconstitutional anyway. So far, same-sex marriage has had no regard for actual religious freedom.

Until Vermont.

The Green Mountain State's new law says in its "Public Accommodations" section that religious groups "shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if the request . . . is related to the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage." It also bars civil lawsuits against religious groups that refuse to provide goods or services to same-sex weddings.

Now, the Vermont Clause certainly could go farther. I would like to see protections for individuals - not just organizations. Still, it's a vast improvement over the other states that have implemented gay marriage without concern for its repercussions on the traditionally religious.

Labels: gay marriage, religious liberty, Vermont

posted by Imapp Staff at 8:53 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...The Bible is about you and your soul, and if you think your neighbor is going to hell you can't stop him. And if you think gay relationships are immoral, surely it's the physical act that bothers you, not the signing of licenses, not the public vows of love and fidelity, not the matching tuxedos. Not the smiling faces. Yet few will make the case for police investigations of what people do between the sheets.

"Same-sex marriage," wrote Maggie Gallagher in National Review, "asks religious Americans," by which she means Christian Americans, "to surrender a core belief -- not only Leviticus (disapproval of gay sexual acts), but Genesis (the idea that God himself made man as male and female and commanded men and women to come together in a special way to image the fruitfulness of God)." But Christians are surrendering nothing. They remain free to disapprove of homosexuality just as they remain free to disapprove of their neighbor's alcoholism or adultery or bad taste in lawn ornaments. They also remain free to move to a country that enforces religious views. ...

As older generations are replaced by young voters, acceptance of gay marriage will become the norm. Opponents will seem marginal, perhaps even despicable. An Iowa poll released this month put statewide support for gay marriage at 36% -- but nearly 60% among voters under 30.

Labels: gay marriage, religious liberty, Vermont

posted by Eve at 8:43 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...But the Vermont same-sex marriage bill was a breakthrough in another way which has received zero attention in the press. For the very first time, a legislature has formally acknowledged that gay marriage poses a serious threat to the religious liberties of Vermonters who disagree with the government's new definition of marriage. And the gay marriage movement has permitted -- if not exactly trumpeted -- that legislature to enact some imperfect yet substantive religious liberty protections, instead of the fake religious liberty protections generally offered to deflect voters' attention from the real issues at stake.

Same-sex marriage is quite different from bans on interracial marriage in one powerful respect: It asks religious Americans to surrender a core belief -- no, not Leviticus (disapproval of gay sexual acts), but Genesis -- the idea that God himself made man male and female and commanded men and women to come together in a special way to image the fruitfulness of God.

Many religious people and groups will bow to, if not exactly endorse, the power of gay activists. Witness Rev. Rick Warren, who on "Larry King Live" this week came very close to recanting his support for Proposition 8. Rick did not quite do so. What he did, instead, is what many good people will do in the face of the massive campaign of intimidation and harassment designed to silence Christians and others of good will who support marriage: He dodged. Rick said, more or less: I am not now and never have been an anti-gay marriage "activist."

Let me be clear. I have enormous respect for Rick Warren. What has happened to Rick, who did nothing more than speak from his pulpit to the members of his own church on Proposition 8, is what lies in store for many good men and women. The deal they will be offered by the government and the culture dominated by same-sex marriage is: Mute your views on marriage so you may continue your other good works. Many good and brave people, to preserve their ability to save lives in Africa or to protect the poor in this country, will take that deal.

I'm not here to criticize him or them -- merely to point out the underlying power of the movement that can get a Baptist minister to recant about marriage on national television.

Labels: gay marriage, Proposition 8, religion, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 1:57 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

I think Tom is quite right here. Note how the California, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Vermont cases relied on legislative decisions approving of gay rights -- antidiscrimination laws, hate crime laws, and other laws -- in striking down a legislative decision against same-sex marriage: The past decisions banning private discrimination (among other decisions) were seen as undermining the state's case for discriminating itself. See http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_04_05-2009_04_11.shtml#1238948132 . And this was so even though the legislature clearly didn't aim at legalizing same-sex marriage through its past decisions: The legislative decisions ended up having a broader indirect legal impact than the legislature intended, or than the legislature wrote into its statutes.

It seems to me plausible that judicial decisions banning opposite-sex-only marriage rules would likewise come to be extended --by legislatures or by courts -- to go beyond their literal boundaries (a decision about government discrimination) and instead to justify bans on private discrimination. Already we've seen expressive association, free speech, and religious freedom claims responded to by saying that a certain private action is contrary to constitutional norms: The government may not discriminate based on race and sex, therefore there must be an especially compelling interest in stopping private individuals engaging in discrimination, or saying things that create an "offensive environment," on those bases. (This is a staple of anti-"hate speech" arguments.) As constitutional norms are extended to ban even highly traditional, well-entrenched discrimination by the government, it seems quite likely that they will spill over into diminishing any constitutional (or RFRA-statutory) claims to engage in such discrimination by private entities, including Boy-Scout-like organizations, churches, religious universities, and other institutions.

Tom's post discusses some of the purely legal mechanisms through which this might happen more concretely; I talk about some similar political mechanisms in Part V of my Same-Sex Marriage and Slippery Slopes article, http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/marriage.pdf. But the broader point is this: Given the tendency in our legal tradition -- and in particular in the same-sex marriage cases -- to read past decisions (even statutory decisions) as establishing broader propositions that influence (inadvertently, from the past decisionmaker's perspective) future decisions, why isn't it quite reasonable for private groups that disapprove of homosexuality to worry that the constitutional same-sex marriage decisions will indeed erode their future expressive association, religious freedom, and free speech claims?

Labels: gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Imapp Staff at 1:31 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Labels: adultery, Connecticut, gay marriage, NOM, religious liberty

posted by Imapp Staff at 1:09 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...It is important to keep an eye on the bigger picture too. The great question which exercises modern culture is the meaning of human autonomy and especially sexual freedom. But this struggle is fundamentally a struggle over a religious question, which can be formulated in various ways and revolves around the reality of a transcendent order, or its denial. One way of putting it is: "Did God create us or did we create God?" The limited scope that secularism is prepared to concede to religious beliefs is based on the assumption that we created God. As long as the supremacy remains with man, as long as faith is understood as a private therapeutic pursuit that can be picked up, changed or discarded at will, it is permissible. But when people insist that faith is more than this and that the supremacy is not ours, it is resisted; increasingly through the law.

The use of anti-discrimination law and human rights claims to advance the autonomy project is not new in itself, but the withholding or retrenchment of exemptions for church agencies and conscience provisions for individuals is a newer and dangerous trend. A number of factors are at play here, but the broad effect is to enforce conformity. It seems that just as the faith and convictions of individual believers have to be privatised and excluded from public life, the services that church agencies provide to society have to be secularised. The service the church gives has always been a source of its growth and strength, and church agencies working in the areas of welfare, family, education, health and aged care bear witness to the values that Christian leaders put forward in public debate. Part of the logic in attacking the freedom of the church to serve others is to undermine the witness these services give to powerful Christian convictions. The goal is to neutralise this witness to the reality of Christian revelation. There is no need to drive the church out of services if the
secularization of its agencies can achieve this end.

Labels: culture, religion, religious liberty

posted by Imapp Staff at 5:06 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

In a recent New York Times op-ed, Brookings scholar Jonathan Rauch and co-author David Blankenhorn argue that linking federal civil unions to guarantees of religious freedom is a way to head off a long-term, scorched-earth debate over gay marriage and religious liberty.

On March 13, Rauch and Blankenhorn discussed their proposal at a forum moderated by Brookings Senior Fellow William Galston. Robin Wilson, editor of Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, discussed the church-state conflicts that same-sex unions may engender. Nathan Diament and Lara Schwarz offered thoughts from religious and gay rights perspectives.

Labels: David Blankenhorn, gay marriage, Jonathan Rauch, religious liberty

posted by Imapp Staff at 5:42 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

No one is arguing that a Catholic priest should have to perform a gay marriage.

But the church says that doesn't go far enough.

The Connecticut Catholic Conference is asking lawmakers to expand the category of those who don't have to comply with the state's new same-sex marriage law if their religion holds that such unions are wrong.

People such as florists, wedding photographers and justices of the peace. ...

The judiciary committee hearing is likely the final chance opponents will have to put up obstacles to gay marriage. But several lawmakers oppose extending the religious exemption. Sen. John Kissel is Catholic and has long shared his church's opposition to gay marriage.

"I've been with you guys all along," said Kissel, a Republican from Enfield. But, "we're at a fork in the road and I have to let go of your hand."

A law preventing a Catholic caterer from serving guests at a same-sex marriage could also be used by a Protestant baker who doesn't want to sell a cake to a Catholic father for his son's first communion, Kissel said. "It could just as easily turn against each and every Catholic in the state of Connecticut."

Labels: Connecticut, gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 12:38 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...Certainly, the proposal deserves a rigorous discussion from all sides. In order for that discussion to be more productive, I’d like humbly to suggest some guidelines:

Rule #1: Do not criticize the proposal by saying, “The other side is not going to like it because…” Let the other side speak for the other side.

Rule #2: Do not respond to an admirable attempt at peaceful negotiation by immediately ratcheting up the rhetoric. For example, at the National Review Online Maggie Gallagher writes, “From where I stand, it looks like the progressive/democrat position states: If you believe marriage means a husband and wife, you are not just wrong, you are downright wicked and deserve to have your home address put up on the internet so strangers can harass you.”

Oy. That violates Rule #1 and Rule #2—in one sentence!

Nobody doubts that there has been excessive rhetoric on both sides. There are advocates who claim that anyone who opposes marriage equality is a hateful bigot; there are opponents who hold that gays by their very existence offend God.

But thankfully, there are also those like Blankenhorn and Rauch who are interested in moving us past such conversation-stoppers. Let’s take the cue.

Rule #3: If you don’t like the proposal, suggest a better idea.

Note: “Give us full marriage equality!” is not what I mean by a better idea. Sure, that’s what would happen in my ideal world. Rauch’s too. And no one is saying that we should stop making the case for it.

But in the meantime, there’s a proposal on the table that would provide federal rights and benefits to those in state-issued same-sex unions. Moreover, it’s a proposal that one major same-sex marriage opponent has endorsed.

Labels: civil unions, David Blankenhorn, gay marriage, Jonathan Rauch, religious liberty

posted by Imapp Staff at 9:41 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...But the compromise doesn’t cede the word “marriage.” Blankenhorn and Rauch aren’t trying to end debate over the word “marriage.” What the B/R compromise (as I shall now call it) attempts to do is put aside two sub-debates associated with marriage, while leaving the primary debate — over formal marriage equality — untouched and ongoing.

I think marriage equality proponents should take this deal, if it becomes a real legislative possibility.

...So we'd go from today's world, where one side demands full marriage rights and the other side rejects even minimal recognition of gay couples, to a world where same-sex couples got federal civil unions—which they'd have to share with a few nuns and aging sisters—but gays agreed not to ask for more. States, presumably, could continue to tussle over gay marriage, but the federal debate would be over.

There's much to think about here, but one practical question strikes me as a likely show-stopper: How could any agreement not to pursue changes in DOMA bind future activists and politicians? A gentlemen's agreement wouldn't be enforceable, and a constitutional amendment would be both difficult as a political matter and unacceptable to SSM advocates, who will see it as writing inequality into the Constitution—the nuclear option, from our point of view.

That's just a first-blush reaction, though. I think the most important thing about Anderson-Girgis is its willingness to reach out and try to do something for same-sex couples, as well as something to ameliorate the culture wars. It should be received by SSM advocates as a good-faith gesture, and it deserves to be broadly and respectfully discussed. And it's another sign that maybe, just maybe, the ice is beginning to thaw around the frozen gay-marriage debate.

Labels: civil unions, David Blankenhorn, gay marriage, Jonathan Rauch, religious liberty, Ryan T. Anderson, Sherif Girgis

posted by Eve at 2:00 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...But as we see it, this proposal grants too much to revisionists and too little to traditionalists. Revisionists get the substantive (if not linguistic) treatment of homosexual unions as marriages; traditionalists get conscience protection (of unspecified scope). But traditionalists’ primary concern is not simply to secure an enclave of personal liberty to regard marriage as they see fit. Rather, it is to promote a healthy culture of marriage understood as a public good that also fulfills spouses and the larger communities of which they are members. ...

But even people who hold differing views on marriage could agree that there is no special reason to extend recognition only to romantic same-sex unions. If hospital visitation rights and Social Security survivor benefits are appropriate for two cohabiting men who have demonstrated long-term commitment and care, does it matter whether they are sexually involved with each other? Wouldn’t those benefits just as well serve, say, two elderly, codependent brothers?

That brings us to our alternative proposal: The revisionists would agree to oppose the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), thus ensuring that federal law retains the traditional definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife, and states retain the right to preserve that definition in their law. In return, traditionalists would agree to support federal civil unions offering most or all marital benefits. But, as Princeton’s Robert P. George once proposed for New Jersey civil unions, unions recognized by the federal government would be available to any two adults who commit to sharing domestic responsibilities, whether or not their relationship is sexual. Available only to people otherwise ineligible to marry each other (say, because of consanguinity), these unions would neither introduce a rival “marriage-lite” option nor treat same-sex unions as marriages. Their purpose would be to protect adult domestic partners who have pledged themselves to a mutually binding relationship of care. What (if anything) goes on in the bedroom would have nothing to do with these unions’ goals or, thus, eligibility requirements.

This is called separate but equal. Ask your local civil rights leader what he or she thinks of a separate-but-equal policy.

My initial and very tentative reaction, as a same-sex marriage supporter, is that the Blankenhorn-Rauch compromise probably gives little away since SSM was never really a threat to religious liberty anyway. As a practical matter, gay families gain a lot in very important federal benefits in exchange for what appears to be barring lawsuits that either weren't -- or shouldn't -- be available. The devil is in the details -- what exactly do "robust religious-conscience exceptions" cover? -- but the op-ed starts a conversation about federal legislation that might be politically achievable in the near future.

...I have two big questions, one practical and one political:

1. Can Congress provide effective religious-liberty protections? Could Congress really tell the Massachusetts court or the California court it must provide — or must accept the legislature's provision of — substantive religious-liberty protections? The California court has just declared that orientation is a protected status just like race. And racial equality trumps religious liberty in our system of government. What would the language look like? Lawyers, please discuss.

2. Is anyone over at Human Rights Campaign and Marriage Equality seriously interested in this compromise?

Here again, we have church fears and desires casually tossed around as if they, in terms of American government, are interchangeable with testaments toward civil fairness. And once again the tone suggests that just because churches desire something, that they are automatically deserved of it. That's a very dangerous concept. And not only for LGBT people, but also for any group that might at any time find themselves within cross-wielding crosshairs. ...

Okay, first off: Yes, we still have work to do to get the president and the American public fully on our side. But you know how not to do that? By ceding ground on a matter that we know within our loving hearts and learned minds is nothing short of right! That would be to our movement's great peril. Especially when you consider that we, despite our setbacks, have made CONSIDERABLE gains in the past few years (with more potentials in the near-to-immediate pipe).

...Interesting, but doesn't the First Amendment provide a "robust religious-conscience exception" already? Or did I just miss all the stories about, say, the state forcing Catholic churches to marry previously divorced people, or threatening to withhold tax-exempt status from religious institutions that won't perform or recognize interfaith marriages? Blankenhorn and Rauch acknowledge that the First Amendment makes it "unlikely" that churches would ever be legally required to marry gay couples but argue that more protection is needed. "What if a church auxiliary or charity is told it must grant spousal benefits to a secretary who marries her same-sex partner or else face legal penalties for discrimination based on sexual orientation or marital status? What if a faith-based nonprofit is told it will lose its tax-exempt status if it refuses to allow a same-sex wedding on its property?"

Oh, now I get it. The First Amendment is actually about preventing religious discrimination, so that's not helpful here. These hypotheticals are not about whether any given church has to formally recognize a particular marriage, but about whether it would have to comply with laws that protect the civil rights of all citizens equally. It's not enough for the state to recognize the right of religious institutions to define the parameters of a sacred rite on their own terms. A government of the people, for the people, and by the people must also recognize and defend their right to treat some human beings as second-class. Gotcha.

...First, if federal law is going to continue to follow state law for the purpose of defining who is eligible when a federal program requires marriage, then it should recognize as marriages – not as civil unions – the Mass and CT and other same-sex marriages that are legal under state law. Following the status recognized by the state has always been the federal approach.

If that is going to change, as Blankenhorn and Rauch propose, then federal law should create a federal civil union status - independent of state law - as the eligibility requirement for federal programs. It would, as a federal status, be open to couples who qualify regardless of whether their state of residence recognizes civil unions. And note that I didn't say "gay couples" - a federal civil union status should be open to both straight and gay couples.

Second, satan is truly in the details of their proposal for a “robust” exception for religious belief. It was striking to me that the op-ed completely omitted any discussion of the impact when non-church (etc) entities – like charities or hospitals with a religious affiliation – accept public funds. When all of our tax dollars are supporting these organizations, then all of us have a legitimate concern about the services they provide.

I am in complete agreement with this proposal, and think anyone who is participating in this debate in good faith could support it. That, I am afraid, is why I’m so doubtful about its success.

The presumption that Blankenhorn, Saletan, Rauch, and pretty much all these dudes who think there’s a compromise point is that they can only make this argument by employing a false assumption, which is that since we’re all Americans (yes, these battles are worldwide, but they’re only speaking to Americans), we share a fundamental values system, and that the battles are about gradations of difference. Therefore we can all just move over a little and tah-dah! We all agree. That’s why Saletan thinks that it will be easy enough for anti-choicers to give up their hostility to contraception and for pro-choicers to give up our belief that an embryo’s value is defined strictly by the mother. And Blankenhorn and Rauch appear to think that the homobigots will be mollified by a few religious protections. And I sort of feel sorry for these dudes, because they are working under the assumption that everyone involved is arguing in good faith. By doing so, they encourage cultural conservatives to continue the strategy of lying about their motivations, because it’s so effective.

...One aspect of the proposal, which might easily be overlooked, strikes me as fatal.

Read carefully. Under the proposal offered, Congress would deem marriages and civil unions between same-sex couples and recognized under state law to be federal civil unions.

Think about that. A couple married in Massachusetts would be downgraded to a civil union for purposes of federal law.

One wonders — given the public opinion data showing very strong support for gay rights, generally, among people under 30 — if this will be a hot issue at all 20 years from now. In this sense the contrast with abortion — 36 years after Roe v. Wade – is striking.

...OK. I have a problem with this already, though I see where they are trying to accomplish -- getting same-sex couples access to the rights and benefits of civil marriage and cede the word marriage to those who cannot decouple it from religious marriage in their heads. Obviously, Kate and I would take that considering we have no recognition in our state and won't unless action comes from the feds or SCOTUS, but Blankenhorn and Rauch's solution, by accommodating the "misunderstanding" about the word marriage -- rather than redefining it (something that has occurred countless times in the past), chooses to draw an institutionalized line of discrimination. Many of the same excuses for bans on interracial marriage revolved around religious objections to it, with scripture cited about the morality of race mixing. Would they have suggested an entire new federal civil institution be created to resolve the problem because the American people weren't ready?

How many religious people or groups concerned about their religious freedom in the face of the political advances of the gay community would trust the current or future Congress (or any one of the past 20 years for that matter!) to protect their rights to robust religious freedom? It would nice to believe such a thing were possible, but if such religious beliefs are built on bigotry anyway – for this is precisely the script of most gay- and much mainstream-commentary on Prop 8 -- how rigorously can such rights be protected?

It seems to me this proposal moves in the right direction: toward evenhanded legal treatment of gay and heterosexual unions and, ultimately, getting the government out of the "marriage" business altogether. Let private institutions decide what constitutes a marriage (as they did through most of human history), with the government's role confined to enforcing contracts and policing the various legal prerogatives currently associated with civil marriage.

So the federal government would support, not supplant, states' decisions on marriage and civil unions. For someone (like me) who believes that the legal treatment of same-sex relationships should remain a state-level responsibility, who believes that the law will (and should) do more to support long-term, committed relationships among gays and lesbians, and who is concerned that the rhetoric of "marriage equality" has shown a tendency to minimize the importance of religious liberty (especially institutional religious liberty), what's not to like about this proposal?

Labels: civil unions, David Blankenhorn, gay marriage, Jonathan Rauch, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 1:33 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

IN politics, as in marriage, moments come along when sensitive compromise can avert a major conflict down the road. The two of us believe that the issue of same-sex marriage has reached such a point now.

We take very different positions on gay marriage. We have had heated debates on the subject. Nonetheless, we agree that the time is ripe for a deal that could give each side what it most needs in the short run, while moving the debate onto a healthier, calmer track in the years ahead.

It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.

For those not immersed in the issue, our proposal may seem puzzling. For those deeply immersed, it may seem suspect. So allow us a few words by way of explanation.

Whatever our disagreements on the merits of gay marriage, we agree on two facts. First, most gay and lesbian Americans feel they need and deserve the perquisites and protections that accompany legal marriage. Second, many Americans of faith and many religious organizations have strong objections to same-sex unions. Neither of those realities is likely to change any time soon.

Labels: civil unions, David Blankenhorn, gay marriage, Jonathan Rauch, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 12:10 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Labels: gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 11:56 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT