In the wake of President Obama's declaration of his personal support for the right of same-sex couples to marry under civil law, the nation is understandably focused on debating the merits of this position. Three related points from President Obama's announcement, however, deserve our attention as well.
First, President Obama noted that there is an important difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. The state defines civil marriage, which serves as the gateway for a wide variety of government benefits, rights and privileges. Religious marriage, on the other hand, is defined solely by religious communities.
These categories may be fuzzy in our minds because current law not only respects the ability of clergy and religious communities to define and bless religious marriage, it also allows clergy to solemnize civil marriage. That's why one often hears a minister conclude a wedding by saying, "By the authority vested in me by the state of X, I now pronounce you husband and wife." Setting aside the oddity of a minister claiming the authority of the state rather than a higher power, the fact that the state allows clergy to bring a civil marriage into being does not mean it can require clergy to bless or recognize any relationship the state defines as civil marriage. Some clergy won't perform interfaith unions, and many refuse to perform a wedding when they believe a couple is unready for the momentous commitment of marriage. Just as the state cannot force clergy to perform these marriages, the state cannot require a clergy person to marry same-sex couples. In his remarks, President Obama affirmed these ideas, emphasizing that he was "talking about are civil marriages and civil laws," as opposed to religious marriages, and that "churches and other faith institutions are still gonna be able to make determinations about what their sacraments are -- what they recognize" as religious marriage.
Second, the president expressed his support for appropriate religious exemptions in legislation recognizing same-sex marriages. In his comments to ABC News' Robin Roberts, President Obama pointed to the example of New York as a state that has been "respectful of religious liberty" in this regard. New York's same-sex marriage law says the state may not "penalize, withhold benefits, or discriminate" against a minister for the minister's refusal to perform a marriage for same-sex couples. Religious organizations and their employees may not be required to provide services, facilities or goods "for the solemnization or celebration" of same-sex marriages, and refusals to do so may not form the basis of any civil claim, nor result in any state penalties, withholding of benefits, or discrimination. This New York law also says the state's recognition of same-sex marriage will not affect things like the ability of religious organizations to make religion-based employment decisions and religious colleges and universities to limit married student housing to heterosexual couples, if that is their practice.
Given constitutional protections for free exercise and religious autonomy, courts would recognize certain exemptions for religious objectors from same-sex marriage laws even without specific legislative language. Spelling these matters out in legislation, however, helps to clarify what is and what is not at stake and to reassure those who would define religious marriage in ways that differ from the state's definition of civil marriage. It may also result in the adoption of wider free exercise protections than is constitutionally required where such protections adequately respect competing interests and are otherwise constitutionally appropriate. There is serious debate about issues like whether some small businesses should be exempt from obligations to provide goods or services for same-sex marriages where business owners have religious objections to doing so and whether religious organizations receiving government grants should be exempt from non-discrimination conditions on the use of grant funds. At the same time, there is no question that exemptions like those in New York law are widely supported, including by President Obama.
Finally, President Obama insisted that conversations about these sensitive and important matters should be conducted in a spirit of civility, and that proponents of same-sex marriage should resist the temptation to demonize those on the other side of the debate. Obama said:
[I]t's important to recognize that folks who feel very strongly that marriage should be defined narrowly as between a man and a woman, many of them are not coming at it from a mean-spirited perspective. They're coming at it because they care about families. ... [A] bunch of them are friends of mine ... pastors and ... people who I deeply respect.
Americans must decide whether they support or oppose recognition of same-sex marriage in our civil laws, but they also must determine how religious objectors will be treated where same-sex marriages are recognized and the spirit in which these debates will be conducted. President Obama's remarks on all these scores are worthy of attention and consideration.
These categories may be fuzzy in our minds "
Seriously? People have trouble with the concept of the difference between civil and religious marriage? Are they giving out marriage licenses at churches, synagogues, mosques and temples these days? Do they know of no one or have they never seen a movie or a TV show where a couple gets married by a judge or a justice of the peace? Where do you find such people?
so......
This should have no effect on anyone but those affiliated with the church that does not want to recognize gay unions.
When hubby and I were going to get married, my preacher refused to marry us and his rabbi refused to marry us. We were married by a judge and broke ties with those institutions. And, of course, there was never any reason for the clergy persons to say anything at all to us afterwards. We've been married for 34 years.
To church members: Leave any religion that does not want you (as you are) as a member.
To churches and clergy: What anybody does outside your church membership is not your business. Stay out of it.
Should be easy, right?
To try and make this some sort of civil right issue is foolish. If my 70 year old aunt wanted to marry her 50 year old son - should that also be legal? The issue of genetic defects is not a factor.
Should a man be allowed to marry more than one woman? Should a woman be allowed to marry more than one man? Or maybe we should treat marriage using a corporate model. Let people buy and sell shares in a marriage relationship and have marriages involving dozens or hundreds of people.
Here is the deal, gays are NOT being discriminated against. They have the same pool of people to marry as heterosexuals do. And once you start messing with the fundemental structures of society - watch out.
You're *sitting there telling people who they can and can't marry, to suit *your* preferences, and calling us 'Perfectly free?'
While commenting on an article about addressing concerns should someone *want* to discriminate against gay couples in business 'for religious reasons?'
"..must determine how religious objectors will be treated" That depends on where you live in the US -That question has already been addressed by the courts, if you have been paying attention. The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.In addition to the protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act.For example, the Unruh act in CA since the 1960's prohibits discrimination based on sexual preference. For those states were there are no laws based on orientation like the Unruh Act, people can discriminate based on orientation.
Give me a break. There is no right to refuse to service same sex individuals.
This constitutes an attack on religious liberty, though they claim the right to do so under the banner of religious freedom. They are wrong, but they will never accept that.
And for all of my Black brothers and sisters out there (two thirds of whom recently voted to institutionalize bigotry and write group-hate into the North Carolina state constitution), just remember when you uphold intolerance of one minority it can then be justified to use similar intolerance against you as well.
And no, state laws do not have to give a wink and a nod to private club bigotry. These entities may have the right to discriminate (religious schools, the Boys Scouts, etc), but the state does not have to codify it to remind everyone -- like they felt they had to do in deciding New York's marriage equality law.
Bob Jones University still does not allow interracial dating. It's perfectly legal, but it should be condemned - just like any institutionalized bigotry should be condemned, including any form of inequality perpetrated against the rights of the GLBT community.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/07/28/the-bju-interracial-datingban-in-print/
alumni
"Greenville, South Carolina – Although Bob Jones
University is not the first fundamentalist school to have gay alumni, it is the
first to threaten their arrest.
Wayne Mouritzen is a 60 year-old retired gay minister, and a graduate of Bob
Jones U. Last October he received a letter from the university which stated, "As
long as you are living as a homosexual, you, of course, would not be welcome on
the campus and would be arrested for trespassing if you did visit."
Bob Jones University doesn't need to worry about losing its tax-exempt
status. It voluntarily gave up its tax-exempt status in 1970, when it banned
interracial dating." http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9901/gayalumni.html
Civil marriage must observe all of the limits imposed by the government on religious marriage. No other other religious requirements can apply to civil marriage.
Any business, individual, chruch or religious institution that accepts government grant money to perform services cannot claim religious exemption that would violate the civil rights of any individual. If they are not willing to provide services to all don't apply for government grants.
You can become an officiant online for free and marry a couple tomorrow. But it is the same legal marriage whether it is performed by clergy, a judge, or your great aunt margie--as long as all the legal paperwork is filled out and filed.
As long as the state provides me a marriage CONTRACT, I am happy. If someone does not want issue one due to beliefs...that is fine as long as a replacement can fill in to do the paperwork. The state has no business telling people who can or CANNOT enter into the LEGAL CONTRACT of marriage.
If we can get the Church to butt out of LEGAL and political and governmental business, we will have an easier time of making marriage equality the law of the land.
WE'RE the ones asked to be compassionate and gentle to Christians who attack us and seek to deny us full participation in the American dream. Shouldn't it be the Christians who are expected to be compassionate and gentle? When did Christianity as a faith decide to tell their founder to drop dead and go to hell?
Finding the required compassion and respect can be enormously difficult for both sides. I remember being remonstrated by a PFLAG organiser that gay children need to be more compassionate to their hostile parents and to try to understand where they are coming from and how difficult it is for them to go against what they had been taught all their lives. As a gay child myself, that was a difficult lesson to hear.
If I were religious, the last thing I'd want is for members of that religion to use it as a shield for social injustice.
If "religious objectors" were being "required" (to borrow a phrase from Ms Rogers' article) to have a same-gender marriage, then they could logically "object'. But they aren't. Ann Landers would have called them busybodies, and told tthem to 'mind their own beezwax'.