Today NPR had an interesting, and ominous, story on how antidiscrimination law is (so far) trumping religious objections to gay marriage. For instance, when a Methodist organization in New Jersey refused to let its property be used for a lesbian wedding, a civil-rights commission revoked a tax break for the site. Next stop: state court.
I hope the Methodists win, though better still if this complaint had never been brought. Gay-rights advocates will be badly burned politically-and the Madisonian in me thinks we'll deserve to be burned-if we use antidiscrimination law as a bulldozer against attempts by religious people to disassociate themselves from same-sex marriage. "It's the law, get used to it" is an unwise and insensitive approach. We can do 95% of what we want to do while letting religious people maintain conscientious-objector status. The other 5% percent is not worth the contention and fury it will cause.
As for using the law to force Christian photographers to shoot gay weddings (also covered in the NPR piece)-James Madison must be spinning in his grave. Freedom of religious conscience is the founding American freedom. For Pete's sake, live and let live.
20 Comments for “Gay Rights v. Religious Liberty?”
posted by bls on
I agree, and I’m glad you posted about this.
Of course, there are plenty of stupid lawsuits brought every day of the year; why should gay people be any different in this respect? Anyway, I think these issues will disappear once gay people feel a little less threatened and a little more secure.
posted by bls on
(The Methodists, BTW, do own the property but also apparently get public funds for the upkeep of some of the buildings, so that’s a bit of a grey area, I think.)
posted by tim on
I agree with you in prinple but you are outright wrong on the methodist issue. For years they have been receiving money from the state for improvements on their land and they have received tax exempt status on much of the property. These are recent changes not something that has been in place for decades. The bottom line is the methodists can either return the tax money granted to them or allow all citizens to use the facilities they helped pay for.
posted by Craig Nelson on
Whilst freedom of religion and expression are important and do require protection (and therefore exemptions in order to preserve freedom of speech, religion) there is a big difference between that and allowing people to discriminate in the provision of goods and services where such discrimination is against the law.
You can’t pass a law and say you must obey this law unless you don’t want to – that’s ridiculous, better not to have the law at all rather than a law people can disregard at will by saying they have a religious objection (i.e. anyone that wants to break the law in question – you make the law a mere voluntary admonition and therefore completely unable to protect people from abuses that the law is designed to counteract).
I think that the exemptions for religious organisations in the UK strikes about the right balance but there is no a la carte for individual believers to pick and choose amongst which laws to adhere to. No one should place themselves above the law.
posted by Pat on
Good point. I agree that the church should have the right to decide who gets married in their facilities. However, they should refuse any public funds for their boardwalk facility. Funny though, Ocean Grove is a very gay friendly town, and most of the Methodist churches in NJ are gay friendly. Kind of surprising all around.
posted by bls on
FYI, they are not really “church facilities” there in Ocean Grove. It’s an open-air pavilion on the Boardwalk that gets used for public events all the time.
posted by Richard on
(1) Do you feel that a city or other gov’t can impose conditions (strings) on the special privleges — i.e. tax breaks — it gives to certain groups?
(2) There is an important legal difference between an ‘actor’ (citizen) who is acting as a representative of the gov’t vs. an actor who is acting as a representative of themsevles or a private business.
(3) Civil rights laws are generally not suppose to cover religious groups or small economic activities.
posted by another steve on
One of the problems is that government is now so big and its outreach so large that very few organizations, whether for-profit or not-for-profit, are not helped/subsidized by the state in some fashion. If we hold than any organizations that benefits directly from the state must bow to the state’s will despite its own beliefs and principles, then we’ll all be dancing to the state’s tune. That may be the "progressives" dream , but to me it sounds more like creeping totalitarianism.
posted by Jorge on
Gay-rights advocates will be badly burned politically?and the Madisonian in me thinks we’ll deserve to be burned?if we use antidiscrimination law as a bulldozer against attempts by religious people to disassociate themselves from same-sex marriage.
I just hope the way we get burned isn’t by straight people completely turning their backs on and ignoring us once we get the bare minimum.
posted by Mike on
It’s good to hear these comments from the gay community. I am straight and I am one of those who believes that homosexuality is wrong. Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman before God. I don’t think it is right for a church to marry a same-sex couple.
However, I would like to apologize for anyone Christian who has mistreated you (save execpt to say what he/she believes is wrong). As conservative as I am, I would agree with Obama that everyone in this country has rights and should be treated equally. Any hate crimes against homosexuals should be dealt with in full equality as any other hate crime. I do not think however that disagreement is a hate crime. I would contend that you have a right to disagree wit me publically just as I have a right to disagree with you in the same manner.
I would also like to add that state marriage isn’t all it is cracked up to be. If you register with the state, the state then has ownership of your offspring. If the state wants to teach your children something and require state school attendence, you’ll have some problems.
I would propose that we all make the ‘big’ government back off. The federal and state govenment should have no say in child development except to enforce comparable intellectual opportunity and prevent abuse. Instead of having same-sex unions be called marriage, I think it would be better that the only thing the state with respect to the “marriage” area would be to grant civil unions. Then we could all have the same federal status if people so choose to seek it (but it should not be required). Then various religous institutions could do as they saw fit.
I wish you well and I hope we can find a way to exist peacefully together in find a way to fulfill the first amendment right of freedom of religion and the free practice thereof.
posted by John M. on
First, thank you so much, Mike! It’s nice to have a civil comment from someone who disagrees, but does not believe that disagreement makes the other an nonhuman.
Second, on the substance of this post, I agree in principle but when government funds enter into it, as it has in the Ocean Grove situation then it enters the arena of “public accommodation,” and not just an issue of religious expression. I’m not saying that this should automatically make public law the arbiter in this case. For example, I would not want religious conservatives having the ability to object to HIV/AIDS services because the funding includes their tax levy dollars. These issues need to be carefully considered. By the way, many Ocean Grove Methodists disagree with the district’s actions.
posted by dalea on
This is simply the old pro-segregation argument restated with us as its target. It used to be that there were people who had strong religious convictions about business dealings with black people. If you support extending this to us, do you also support using it against blacks?
posted by Pat on
Mike, you’ve made a lot of good points, but I take issue with one of them. First, I agree that churches should not be compelled to marry same sex couples. But, I do believe a church should have the right to marry same sex couples if they wish. In fact, some do already, because they do not agree with you that marriage is only a covenant between a man and a woman.
posted by bls on
I agree with you, Mike; civil unions for all, and religious marriage as churches see fit. I’m one of those who don’t really care what it’s called, anyway; if heterosexuals want to reserve the right to the word “marriage,” I really don’t care in the least. I don’t see why this is so important, to be honest – except that it will force the state even further into the issue, because it will have to create two sets of laws for what is essentially the same condition.
Which is why “civil union” makes sense, actually.
(BTW, I’m quite religious myself, so there’s another data point.)
posted by bls on
dalea, the issue of sex really is different in many ways from the issue of skin color (although there are parallels in some of the problems we face, also).
Sex is a confusing and difficult thing for many people. For some people, I think when they see us or think about us, a big neon sign that says “S-E-X” in big letters is hanging over our heads. It’s difficult for some people to accept because it really is “outside the norm.” In the case of the photographer, for instance: I’m guessing it might be kind of like forcing her to photograph a wedding at a nudist colony. I’m not saying that a gay wedding would be exactly like one at a nudist colony, only making a parallel. There’s nothing wrong with nudism, either – but some people would be very uncomfortable taking such pictures. It would assault their sensibilities.
In any case, it’s just not smart politically to be so in-your-face about certain things – and it’s definitely not smart to force people to accommodate us when other options are available. In time, it likely won’t be much of an issue for most people.
posted by dalea on
bis says: the issue of sex really is different in many ways from the issue of skin color
Not really, I would maintain that these are one and the same issue. Skin color = sex. People who are ‘uncomfortable’ with their customers need to withdraw from the market economy. Perhaps some sort of extreme Soviet socialism would please them. The boundries of your business are set by your customers; not by you. Long years of experience tell me this.
posted by bls on
Well, you might be right, dalea; I see it as slightly different because sexual issues are more “weird” and more personal for everybody to deal with. And I, myself, would be loathe to force a photographer to work in a situation in which he or she was really uncomfortable; I used the nudist colony example for this reason. (I don’t think the government should force people to do things like this, anyway.)
I’d rather have somebody who’d do a good job, anyway.
posted by Craig2 on
Here’s one aspect that no-one may have considered. In NZ, most straight marriages these days are civil ones, virtually indistinguishable from civil unions except for the gender restrictions and the order of service (at present, which do include post-op transfolk in their reassigned gender, though).
Added to that, we’re more likely to be secular than the rest of the population anyway- so the specified ‘marriage’ in same-sex marriage would usually be civil marriage, with optional add-on ceremonial celebrations if the couples so wish.
Of course fundamentalist members of mainline churches should be free not to preside over marriages or civil unions if they don’t want to. However, as with the case of liberal Anglican minister Reverend Martin Dudley in London, *it cuts both ways.* Respect *our* religious freedom, and we’ll respect *yours.*
However, it should not apply to anything outside the core organisation and faith-based ordination and membership specifications.
For example, if it accepts state monies for providing social services, then it is obliged to obey any anti-discrimination laws as a service provider, and not proselytise while it is doing so.
Craig2
Wellington, New Zealand
posted by Stupid Article on
“I hope the Methodists win”
I’m dazed by the utter stupidity in these words. And why exactly should they win the ability to deny use of this PROPERTY, which obviously was agreed by the court to be “open to everyone”? If it’s “private”, then they should have privately funded it. Will someone please explain how the intentions of Hoffman have ANYTHING to do with his ability to practice his religion freely? The notion of endorsement by association is absolute bullshit. Does the G in the GLBT stand for gullible? Apparently some people are gullible enough to fall for these guilt trips. I suppose to this gullible crowd, a doctor, in an emergency situation should be free not to save the life a man or woman in a same-sex relationship, in order to allow the exercise of religious freedom as otherwise, the doctor would be “promoting homosexuality”. Live and let live my ass. Tell that to your Methodist buddy.
posted by Manu on
I agree with Tim. Private organizations are free to behave how they please so long as they are privately funded. As soon as they take public funds, they have to serve the entire public. If this conflicts with their beliefs, they should not accept public funds. You can’t first accept handouts from the state and then scream that the state is intruding on your beliefs. Private principles=Private funding, Public principles=Public funding. It really is that simple.