Gay Marriage Poses a Threat to Religious Liberties
Almost as soon as the California Supreme Court narrowly struck down the state’s voter approved Defense of Marriage Act – also known as Prop. 22 – in May, church pastors besieged PJI with phone calls. These pastors had two concerns: 1) that their churches would be forced to host gay marriage ceremonies when the Bible expressly condemns homosexuality; and 2) that pastors who oppose gay unions would be forced to perform the ceremonies despite their religious convictions.
Whether you agree with the Bible’s position on homosexuality or not, the First Amendment generally prohibits state governments from forcing people to act in a manner that violates their religious beliefs. Still, if Prop. 8 does not pass, churches and pastors who refuse to host or perform same-sex weddings risk being sued for discrimination under California’s Unruh Act, which prohibits businesses from discriminating against same-sex couples.
The specter of costly lawsuits presents churches and pastors with a painful choice: Host gay weddings despite their religious convictions, or use their limited financial resources -- which are better spent helping people in need – to fight to preserve their constitutionally protected religious freedoms.
Others will face that choice, too. A Christian photographer in New Mexico was sued earlier this year for refusing to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. Under the Unruh Act, owners of wedding-related businesses in California would face similar suits.
Many owners of wedding-related businesses believe they are called to serve as witnesses for God through their chosen professions. They would rather forego any additional business same-sex ceremonies might bring in than violate their religious convictions. While the line against discrimination has to be drawn somewhere, should wedding-related business owners be forced to ignore their religious convictions and support California ’s gay community?
If anything, California ’s pro-gay faction is trying to impose its views on the rest of California , not the other way around.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
While individuals may chose to agree with or not agree with Same-Sex marriages, including religions, the California Supreme Court has ruled that Same-Sex Marriage and Traditional Marriage are the same (please read the California Supreme Court consolidated "In Re Marriage Cases"), and as such, cannot be legally distinguished or separated. What now happens to individuals or religious institutions who continue to separate them, or to disagree with Same-Sex Marriage. Their right to hold an opinion is now legally weakened. In fact, Catholic Adoption Services in Massachusetts, where Same-Sex Marriage is also legal, has been legally told to include Same-Sex couples in their adoption services or to shut down their operations. Thus, while the Catholic Adoption Services do not "agree" with Same-Sex Marriage, they have been forced to either accept it or close down. The right to disagree has been taken away, and this is only one of several cases I have heard of where even non-profit organizations, religious organizations, and business have been fined for not "agreeing" with Same-Sex Marriage. Those who believe Same-Sex Marriage is a matter of opinion and should not be forced on all should vote Yes on Proposition 8.
How is your right to hold an opinion legally weakened? Are you actually being persecuted under the law for simply holding an opinion? Or, are you allowed to keep your opinion while you are being forced by law to treat people equally? I think what you're really trying to say is that your right to force your opinion on others is legally weakened. Isn't that more appropriate? Let me ask... Do you believe in Equal Protection under the law? Or do you believe that some people deserve more protection than others? Do you believe that there is a chosen class of people who should receive preferential treatement? Perhaps a class of people who's opinions are so important that they trump the fundamental rights of a lower class of people? Have the meek really inherited the earth? Is this really the legacy of Jesus? When his 'Chosen' people would become the "Romans" who stripped the lower class of their humanity?
I work as a volunteer at Catholic Adoption Services. They have not been fined, their operations have not been challenged, and the courts specific ally stated in their decision that no religious organization could be required to act against the mandates of their faith. Of course, if they refuse to allow otherwise qualified same sex couples to be represented, they may lose their tax exzempt status, but that would require another court ruling. Please make sure the blogs you go to are reporting factually before you quote them.
Any religious establishment can refuse to recognize the sanctity of a non-traditional marriage. Whether one is married civilly or not does not force a religion to recognize it as a "holy matrimony." If religious establishments refuse to participate in these and require a JP wedding, so be it.