Legal experts in the field of religious liberty, including noted University of Notre Dame law professor Rick Garnett, sent a joint letter to the D.C. City Council advising the Council that the current D.C. same-sex marriage bill lacks adequate religious liberty protection for religious institutions, private businesses, and individuals. The experts both point out the deficiencies of the current legislation and also provide specific corrective recommendations based on legal precedent and sound legal theory. They are very clear that they are not advocating for or against same-sex marriage. Rather, they are hoping to help the D.C. City Council avoid a legal morass due to inadequate religious liberty safeguards:
We write to urge the D.C. Council to ensure that D.C.’s same-sex marriage bill1—the “Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009” (or “D.C. Marriage Bill”)—does not infringe on the religious liberty of organizations and individuals who have a traditional view of marriage. It is not only possible to legalize same-sex marriage without infringing on religious liberty, it is the wise course. The contentious debate in Maine, California and elsewhere surrounding same-sex marriage proves the wisdom of constructive, good-faith attempts to both legally recognize same-sex marriage and protect religious liberty for conscientious objectors.
The experts point to numerous examples of potential litigation and government penalties resulting from this failure to protect religious liberty. For example:
- Individuals of conscience who run small business related to wedding services such as photographers, florists, or bakeries can be sued under public accommodations laws for refusing to offer their facilities or serves to members of a same-sex marriage.
- A church or other religious nonprofit can be sued if it fires an employee for entering into a same-sex marriage.
- Doctors, psychologist, social works, counselors, and other professionals who oppose same-sex marriage on the basis of religious principles can have their licenses revoked.
- Religious fraternal organizations that object to same-sex marriage can be denied food services licenses, child care licenses, or liquor licenses.
- Religious colleges can have their accreditation revoked for refusing to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages.
This letter does a very good job explaining that the objections to facilitating same-sex marriage do not necessarily stem from animus towards gays:
Some assume that any religious objection to same-sex marriage must be an objection to providing goods or services to gays as such: in other words, that a refusal represents animus towards gay couples. Yet many people of good will view marriage as a religious institution and the wedding ceremony as a religious sacrament. For them, assisting with a marriage ceremony has religious significance that commercial services, like serving burgers and driving taxis, simply do not. They have no objection generally to providing services, but they object to directly facilitating a marriage.
The letter closes with very sensible counsel for the D.C. City Council:
Without adequate safeguards for religious liberty of the sort proposed in this letter, the recognition of same-sex marriage will lead to socially divisive and entirely unnecessary conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious liberty. That is a needless and destructive path where both sides lose. There is a balanced “middle way.” The D.C. Council should avoid either extreme and be the peacemaker. On that note, we would further information, analysis, or testimony to the Council.
For more info:
Full text of letter to D.C. City Council
Archbishop Wuerl statements on same-sex marriage legislation
Comments
Even if religious liberty is not infringed upon, I have objections to the legalization of same-sex marriage. Conferring the title of marriage on these relationships promotes the notion that they represent a public good. While I understand that my position is distressing to those people for whom these relationships are closely connected to the legitimate feelings of love, I do not believe that the physical expression associated with the term "marriage" is morally or spiritually healthy. This is a deeply held religious belief of mine and very connected to my understanding of the dignity of the indvidual.
How does it affirm the dignity of the individual to disregard a partner in favor of the family of origin when a spouse receives different treatment? There is no rational justification for treating them differently, so same sex marriage is inevitable.
Deeply held beliefs are not a reason for discrimination.
"Gay" is not a person, it refers to sexual preference. Marriage equality already exists. Every Person must meet the same standards to be Married. Our Constitution does not provide for establishing a separate personhood based on sexual preference. Refusing to condone homosexual sexual acts or any sexual act that does not Respect the Sacredness and Dignity of the Human Person is not discrimination.
According to our Founding Fathers, our Constitution is based upon the Truths that are self-evident, endowed to each one of us from our Creator, Nature's God. (with the capital G) This is the God who is the author of The Ten Commandments, including the Commandment to honor thy Father and Mother, which we all know is consistent with God's intention for Marriage and the Family, to begin with.
Michael, read paragraphs 2357-2359 in the Catechism. All Catholics, self-labeled progressive and otherwise, profess to accept the teachings of the Church. Otherwise, they are merely Protestants masquerading as Catholics. The teaching on homosexuality is based on natural law, and therefore, not dependent on religious revelation. It is not an act of Christian love or charity to encourage others to live in an objectively disordered state that serves as an impediment to holiness. There are simple legal remedies available to allow one to make anyone,--spouse, family, friend--one's medical advocate and ensure they will be at your hospital bedside. Marriage is not necessary. However, in spite of this, the speed of the hand basket seems to be increasing, so I am grateful for legal experts who seek to protect religious liberty.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!