Phineas Q. Butterfat (audacian) wrote in ontd_political,
Phineas Q. Butterfat

Equal protection does not work that way.

Protect religious dissent to same-sex unions

First published in print: Friday, May 8, 2009

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.

Flash points over same-sex unions are already occurring. The Iowa state attorney general told county recorders that they must issue licenses to same-sex couples or face criminal misdemeanor charges and even dismissal. New Mexico's Human Rights Commission fined a husband-wife photography team more than $6,000 because they declined to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. In New Jersey, authorities yanked the property-tax exemption of a church group that denied requests by two lesbian couples to use the group's boardwalk pavilion for their commitment ceremonies.

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 lawsuits 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.

As important as these exemptions are, states still weighing same-sex marriage should do better. Wedding advisers, 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 the other states still considering same-sex marriage — have laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Conscience protections are a thoroughly American idea. Since Colonial times, legislatures have exempted religious minorities from laws inconsistent with their faith. Such exemptions allow Americans with radically different views on moral questions to live in peace and equality.

Connecticut and Vermont have gone part of the way toward recognizing that the rights of same-sex couples should not come at the expense of the religious people who believe that marriage means a husband and a wife.

Now, New York, Illinois, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia should take the time to get same-sex marriage right.

Robin Wilson, professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, wrote this article for The Washington Post.


Sorry buddy, new york already bans discrimination based on sexual orientation. So yeah, if you operate a public business, you can't say "I'm not doing X because you're gay and I don't like it." And that catholic university can do whatever it wants as long as it doesn't accept state aid. Wedding service providers can simply say "no thanks, I'm booked." They can deny services for a host of reasons, but no, not because you're gay. Haven't we been through this with race and sex discrimination, folks?
Tags: marriage equality

  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for members only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded