Whether adding robust (as opposed to paper-thin) religious-liberty exemptions to Maine's gay-marriage law would have kept that law off the ballot is dubious, at best. But there maybe something to suggestion-made here (PDF) by Prof. Douglas Laycock, a gay-marriage supporter-that adding those exemptions now might take some steam out of the anti-gay-marriage initiative. Since reasonable and robust religious exemptions make sense anyway, this should be tried.
Another group of legal scholars weighs in for them here (PDF).
A persuasive rebuttal: K.C. Johnson, a Brooklyn College historian, Maine native and voter, and co-author of a book on the Duke lacrosse fiasco, offers this reply to my post (excerpted, with his permission, from a longer email):
I just read the Wilson group's letter to Gov. Baldacci, and write to express my dismay at its timing-and your suggestion that Baldacci and the legislative Dems should consider adopting it at this stage of the campaign.
I suspect [that] the Yes on 1 effort will use the Wilson letter to revive their theme that the state will see a flood of lawsuits if Question 1 is rejected. That the Wilson group's letter acknowledged that their original missive had been misinterpreted in Yes on 1 advertisements but still felt compelled to send another letter, at the height of the campaign, strikes me as disturbing.
I also found absurd the Wilson group's claim that if only the state legislature had adopted their suggestions in the spring, the resulting campaign would have been more "civil." Since Yes on 1 seems entirely responsive to NOM and the state Catholic Church--both of which would have opposed gay marriage anyway-it's hard to imagine the provision's adoption making any difference in the tone of the campaign. Indeed, the provision is irrelevant to the education argument that's been at the heart of the Yes on 1 campaign.
I support religious exceptions-although not the Wilson group's assertion that these exceptions could, in some circumstances, apply to government employees-for political reasons. But given the way this particular campaign has turned out, I don't think there's much evidence that things would have been any different if the law profs' recommendations had been adopted, and the timing of this current batch of letters strikes me as highly unfortunate.
4 Comments for “Heat Shield”
posted by esurience on
Hmm, I’m not seeing the political calculation the way you are.
Talking about adding robust “religious-liberty exemptions” to the marriage equality law only adds steam to the opposition’s argument that marriage equality is a threat to people’s individual and religious liberty. Sure, if the law were to pass between now and election time, and people actually read about the law being passed… that might change things. But this discussion, unless you’ve got some inside information on the likelihood that the Maine legislature is going to pass this between now and election time (a month away) is actually harmful.
posted by mark on
I agree completely with esurience–as the quartet’s letter notes, their first missive already has made it in to a Yes on 1 ad, and I’m sure this one will as well. This will simply give fuel to a campaign that’s been sputtering.
The discussion about “civil discourse” is especially amusing, since the bulk of the Yes on 1 campaign has been based on an outright deception–that the law would mandate the teaching of “homosexual marriage” in schools–which the law professors’ letter didn’t address at all. In short, even if the legislature had done everything this quartet wanted, it’s hard to imagine the character of the campaign would be any different.
Finally, the law professors seem to have a lot of trouble with the sexual orientation provision of our anti-discrimination law, since most of their concerns actually deal with that. That’s now been the law for four years, approved after a failed people’s veto effort, and there doesn’t seem to have been a wave of lawsuits.
posted by BobN on
Prof. Laycock doesn’t strike me as a particularly strong supporter of gay rights. He does seem very intent on carving out exemptions to protect religious freedom. That these carve-outs would ONLY apply to gay people, as opposed to broader exemptions that would allow people with “deep convictions” to discriminate based on race and religion as well, says all I need to know.
posted by jerry on
I add my voice to the irrelevance of the religious exemptions. Those who hate the gay community for demanding the civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States will be as nasty as they think they can be without alienating more voters than they attract.
I frankly can’t see a single area where gays having access to civil marriage threatens any religious organization with potential law suits. Every wedding I have ever attended in a church has been as the result of the couple requesting that minister to perform the ceremony.
I can see many points of contention from the exemptions because they can’t be crafted narrowly enough. Massachusetts experienced episodes of state employees demanding to be exempted from issuing licenses because of their religious beliefs.
Catering to religious bigots just doesn’t work. It does make it more difficult for people with religious convictions to stand up to the bigots in their midst.