New York Times' Gay Marriage Nothing New

In Toronto, Canada, my girlfriend worked as a teacher and community organizer in a Deaf center affiliated with an Evangelical church.

She is out of the closet, has short hair that she spikes up most days and often invited me to work functions as her partner. Her job, while incredibly rewarding was more insecure than most: as a religious organization, her employer could legally fire her at any moment for being gay.

So imagine my surprise when the New York Times published an op-ed yesterday describing a new "great compromise" on gay marriage that essentially provided for marriage rights with religious exemptions. That proposal sounds a lot like Canadian law.

In fact, exceptions to the general recognition of same-sex unions for religious organizations is a part of almost every gay marriage law around the world.

In the Netherlands, where same-sex marriages became legal in 2000, the Protestant Church's congregations are given complete discretion over whether they perform gay marriages. In South Africa, religious institutions and individual civil officers are given the right to refuse to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies. In Norway, the same sex-marriage law passed this year allows the entire Lutheran Church (the largest religious organization in the country) to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

Equality provisions in the American Constitution are far less robust than those in Canada or in South Africa or many other countries. Yet, religious organizations in those countries don't have to hire gay people, don't need to have gay pastors and don't need to provide benefits to existing gay employees. In Canada, churches that discriminate against gay people are still exempt from paying property taxes.

Now, I strongly oppose tax breaks for religious organizations that actively discriminate. I do not want my money used to support the campaign to undermine my own rights. Still, coming from a country like Canada where public Catholic education is constitutionally guaranteed, I understand that compromise with religious institutions is sometimes necessary.

And the truth is, that the compromise between religious freedom and gay rights has worked well . It may be that any deviation from that compromise would illegally infringe constitutionally protected religious rights in the U.S. and would certainly cause unnecessary opposition to the equal rights movement.

If this is the great compromise, then gay marriage should be on the short term agenda in Federal politics. The U.S. would just be following in the footsteps of many other developed countries in the world. Gay marriage advocates have never been interested in forcibly quashing the churches and organizations that feel compelled to oppose homosexuality. We are in support of the free exercise of religion and the freedom of speech.

All we really want is the same legal status as the people who work so hard to condemn us.

When my girlfriend left her job at the Deaf center to return to school they threw her a lovely good-bye party. Her co-workers, both religious and non-religious, are still good friends. This, despite the fact that many of the people in her office building believe fervently that homosexuality is a sin.

What Canada has found is that, with a little time, religious organizations and equal rights can co-exist peacefully. That co-existence leads to tolerance from some quite unexpected places.

Comments

[carsntrucks]

"Now, I strongly oppose tax breaks for religious organizations that actively discriminate. I do not want my money used to support the campaign to undermine my own rights. Still, coming from a country like Canada where public Catholic education is constitutionally guaranteed, I understand that compromise with religious institutions is sometimes necessary. "

Because all church's do is wait around until the next ballot initiative regarding same-sex marriage to pop up to start doing anything in the community?

Church's spend most of their money giving back to the community and providing for their members. Just because LDS members gave heavily to the Prop 8 cause (which, btw, many church's also gave heavily to defeat Prop 8...a point many seem to forget when they attack church's and their tax exempt status) doesn't mean that's *all* they do, and there's more to their exempt status than just subsidizing their campaign to "take your rights away".

But I wouldn't really expect someone who seems to be somewhat antagonistic of the church in the first place to understand that.

[Rebecca Joffe Halpern]

You are right, this framework is already in existence--many churches do not recognize divorce or subsequent marriages, but the federal government upholds equality for those unions under the law. I enjoy reading your articles Emma!

[GrahamInCanada]

1. It is untrue that an employer affiliated with a church (as opposed to the church itself) in Canada can discriminate against lesbians. See Connie Heintz and Christian Horizons (Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, 2008)

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2008/2008hrto22/2008hrto22.html

which repeated it, this time in very great detail, for the upteempth time.

The religious exemption for churches in Canada is only for their core religious mission and employees thereof, such as priest or ministers, or volunteers thereof, or members thereof; secular missions they undertake, such as helping the deaf, must obey secular law.

We have gay marriage in Canada, folks, gay social workers can't be fired.

2. The "great compromise" yesterday in the NYT does not resemble Canadian law one iota, don't be silly.

3. Catholic Public and Protestant Public school funding were both guaranteed in the Constitution, to prevent a religious war, at founding.

4. No church in Canada pays property tax, whatever their beliefs.

5. No employer in Canada is required to pay benefits to any employee, but they cannot deny employees benefits on the grounds of being gay.

[propitiousmoment]

Thank you, this is very sensible and in fact I thought it was obvious. I'm not sure why churches would need an explicit exemption in order to permit them to continue to refuse their religious blessing to anybody. But if it needs to be written into the law to address their fears, by all means let's do it already. It's always seemed to me like a straw-man argument from the churches, "if gays have rights we will have to let them preach in our pulpits" etc., or else a naive acceptance of "facts" the bigots and fearmongers feed them in order to gain and hold their support. If there is explicit language exempting churches in the law, a major foundation of their opposition to gay civil rights is completely eroded. Continued opposition after that will expose their position for what it is in truth.

[Dan4Equality]

The CA Supreme Court explicitly outlined the exemption in its decision allowing same-sex marriage. This fact didn't keep the opposition from using the issue to oppose gay marriage.

This is a straw man.

[aliceinthewater]

When my brother and sister in law were planning their marriage they ran around their city for two weeks trying to find someone to officiate. The problem? My brother is Catholic and my sister in law is Hindu. Neither wanted to convert.

This exemption already exists.

[TheSnarkingLot]

This is just more of the same BS from organized religions.

Is anyone really demanding that churches do anything they're not already prepared to do? I believe that most pro-marriage equality folks are looking for civil recognition. The church, any church, does not afford rights to people. That is the realm of the government.

But, seriously, I am sick to death of religions and their exemptions. The tax-exemption they are already afforded in the United States is enough to make me projectile vomit! It's like handing out taxpayer cash to reward them for being backwards.

Another example of religion getting all up in State. Enough is enough.

http://TheSnarkingLot.blogspot.com

[Olivia Clair]

The realm of church-run businesses is already different on the subject of discrimination in the employment law setting. Church-run colleges and hospitals in California, for example, cannot discriminate against LGB people in employment or benefits. Churches can, however, discriminate when hiring, especially in hiring clergy. This makes sense: if they couldn't discriminate on the basis of religion, they would have to interview someone not of their faith to be their religious leader. Churches are different in many legal contexts from church-affiliated institutions of higher learning and hospitals. Emma's right; the framework for granting necessary religious exemptions already exists, and a slippery slope does not.

[Dan4Equality]

American churches already have this religious exemption - they cannot be forced to accept lgbt people into their congregations nor be forced to perform same-sex marriages, and they can still keep their tax exempt status. Any impression otherwise is a ruse perpetuated by the religious right to oppose equality of gay people.

Where churches cannot discriminate, is generally in areas where there are lgbt anti-discrimination laws on the books which protect against discrimination in public accommodations and services. If churches want to provide these services, and do so with government funding (as they are looking to do under both Bush's and now Obama's faith-based initiatives) then they should not be allowed to discriminate against lgbt people. These services involve not civil rights, but often basic human needs, access to healthcare, shelter, food, clothing, etc. To allow discrimination against lgbt people in these services could harm the most vulnerable among us in profound ways.

Also, granted the religious exemption, I can see the realm of church-run businesses expanding to facilitate more discrimination, where does it stop? If you can have a faith-based hospital - how about a hotel? How about a restaurant? How about a store? Do lgbt people really have to grant an exemption to the main group that wants to discriminate against them most?

Why is this compromise being floated anyway? Because we are winning. Keep up the good work. Fight for equality.