Religious Freedom Concerns are Real with Same-Sex Marriage

By William C. Duncan

Most people are rightfully leery of buying something just because the seller touts his or her personal religious activity. In California, right now, there are groups working to defeat Proposition 8, the proposed constitutional amendment that would protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Part of their sales pitch is their religious identity.
They feel the need to advertise this because their own church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has officially announced its support for the common-sense measure that would reverse the actions of a bare majority of the California Supreme Court that ruled in May that a hitherto unknown and still unwritten provision of that state's constitution required that marriage be redefined to include same-sex couples.
Most recently, an attorney and a group calling itself “Mormons for Marriage” have been attacking the idea that redefining marriage in California creates possible negative ramifications for religious liberty in this state. They have attempted to refute an anonymous document that lists some of these potential ramifications. They say the document misconstrues legal precedents and that, actually, there is no reason to worry that churches and religious believers will be harmed in any way if California redefines marriage.
Anyone can read the LDS Church's official statement on the issue, “The Divine Institution of Marriage,” published on August 13, 2008 and available on the Church's website for a careful and persuasive examination of this question that concludes that the redefinition of marriage does bode ill for religious liberty. Interestingly, one of the attacks cites to the Church statement to argue that the debate over marriage should be civil (a point on which all hopefully agree) but does not note this section.
In addition, eminent religious liberty scholars who have a variety of opinions on the subject of same-sex marriage all agree that a conflict between the state and religious organizations and believers is an inevitable result of redefining marriage. A video presentation by some of these scholars is available here. How that conflict will work out may be a matter of debate but its existence is widely understood to be a given.
The California Supreme Court itself has made it abundantly clear that it does not think the Federal or State Constitutions provide a religious exemption to laws mandating identical treatment of same-sex couples or gay and lesbian individuals. In a recent, unanimous, opinion to this effect, the court said a doctor could not invoke his religious beliefs in a lawsuit brought against him because he did not provide an artificial insemination procedure to a woman in a same-sex couple. See North Coast Women's Care Medical Group v. San Diego Superior Court, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 708 (Cal. 2008). In its opinion, the court said that even under the legal standard most protective of religious liberty the doctor would lose because the state had a compelling interest in requiring identical treatment of homosexuals. One judge wrote a separate opinion agreeing with the result and identifying the court's same-sex marriage decision as the authority for the proposition that every law must treat same-sex and opposite-sex couples exactly the same. Ibid. at 722 (opinion of Justice Baxter).
Since many churches' religious beliefs do not allow them to provide employment, public accommodations, adoption services and other benefits to same-sex couples, it is not very hard to see that the court's ruling sets up a serious quandary for believers.
Those who are now arguing that “all is well” for religious liberty say that it is not the redefinition of marriage that has caused these changes. In one way they are right, but their argument is also very misleading. It is true that states which have not redefined marriage have significantly interfered with religious liberty in advancing the cause of gay rights. They have relied on state statutes enacted by legislatures. These statutes, though, could be amended to make exceptions for religious groups. When the court redefines marriage, however, it makes the issue a constitutional matter and the court interpretation will trump any statutory exemption and might, as the California Supreme Court ruled, even outweigh other constitutional rights like religious freedom.
This is what the U.S. Supreme Court held in a famous case brought to remove the tax exemption of a religious college, Bob Jones University, which at the time forbade interracial dating. The government argued successfully in that case that the university should have its tax exemption revoked because the government's policy of ending racial discrimination outweighed any other consideration. See Bob Jones University v. U.S. , 461 U.S. 574 (1983)
It is common sense to most of us that racial discrimination is wrong and that a belief in marriage as the union of a man and a woman is a different matter. When the California Supreme Court ruled that marriage had to be redefined, however, they turned the issue of marriage into a civil rights issue and gave official government endorsement to the idea that those who believe in husband/wife marriage are bigots. The Bob Jones case and many other laws teach us that the law does not tolerate those it considers to be bigots.
Proposition 8 would overrule the California Supreme Court's holding about marriage and allow those who believe in marriage to continue that belief without the official stigma of being considered bigots.
The marriage decision will have effects beyond religious liberty. One of the most obvious is that it requires schools to teach students of every age that there is no difference between marriage between a husband and wife and between same-sex couples. California law now requires that students in public schools from kindergarten on must be taught about “Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.” California Education Code 51890 Now that marriage has been officially redefined, any discussion of marriage must include discussions of same-sex marriage. Another provision of the law forbids discrimination in any school program on the basis of “sexual orientation” which reinforces this policy. California Education Code 200
This is not a hypothetical concern. In Massachusetts , the only other state to redefine marriage, this exact situation has arisen. Parents who objected to pro-gay curriculum at their children's elementary school lost their lawsuit seeking an injunction to exempt their children from the material, in part because a federal court said the public schools “ have an interest in promoting tolerance, including for the children (and parents) of gay marriages.” See Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87 (1 st Cir. 2008).
There are other religious liberty concerns as well. In Canada , where marriage has been redefined, a Knights of Columbus hall in British Columbia was fined for canceling a reception for a same-sex couple's wedding. See Chymyshyn v. Knights of Columbus, 2005 BCHRT 544 (2005). The list could go on.
These concerns do not exhaust the potential harms to which Proposition 8 would respond.
When the California Supreme Court redefined marriage, they did so not only for the small group who might benefit from the change but for every citizen of the State of California . This change means that the law of California now strongly endorses three ideas: men and women are essentially interchangeable, children do not need a mother and father and those who disagree are bigots.
In reality, every healthy human society, across time and cultures, has had some kind of marriage institution to encourage those who might create children to take responsibility for those children and for each other. Marriage is fundamentally about children's needs, not adult desires.
Our society owes children the opportunity, whenever possible, to know and develop a meaningful bond with their own mother and father. Marriage between a man and a woman is the best way to provide this opportunity.
California law now creates intentionally motherless or fatherless families where children will not experience the unique contributions of at least one of their parents.
Decades of social science research has effectively demonstrated that the best arrangement for children's well being is to be raised by their own mother and father who are married to each other. Even married couples that do not have children promote society's concern for children by providing an example to those that do and, by observing their marriage vows, preventing the creation of other motherless or fatherless homes.
Proposition 8 is not about taking people's rights away. It is a simple way to protect marriage. It is also the last chance California voters may have to get their say on this matter.
William Duncan is the director of the Marriage Law Foundation. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Protect Marriage campaign in California or of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Religious Persecution As A Result Of The Pro-Homosexual Agenda

Click on this link:

http://www.naenorcal.net/forms/religious_persecution.pdf

Who Is Being Discriminated Against?

We need to be concerned. The consequences are real. Check out this story.

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/main.html

Quote for the day

“Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government, nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes might; and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty, as we understand it.” Abraham Lincoln.

Family Policy Lecture

The free exercise clause in the Constitution will NOT protect our religious liberties without the passage of Prop 8. (Differing viewpoints are presented here.)
Family Policy Lecture
Download Audio (.mp3): Free
Panel Discussion on California Same-sex Marriage: The Impact on Religious Liberty
On July 10, 2008, FRC hosted a panel discussion on the California Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage and its impact on First Amendment rights and religious liberty protections.
Press the 'play' button below to view video of the discussion: (go to the link to view video)http://www.frc.org/panel/california-same-sex-marriage-the-impact-on-religious-liberty
WHO:
Kevin J. "Seamus" Hasson, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Benjamin Bull, Alliance Defense Fund
Professor Teresa Stanton Collett, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Nathan J. Diament, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
Professor Chai R. Feldblum, Georgetown University Law Center
Tony Perkins, Family Research Council

Seven Points to Consider by Margot Schulzke

1. "Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults."
2. "Extensive studies have shown that in general a husband and wife united in a loving, committed marriage provide the optimal environment for children to be protected, nurtured, and raised. This is not only because of the substantial personal resources that two parents can bring to bear on raising a child, but because of the differing strengths that a father and a mother, by virtue of their gender, bring to the task."
3. "The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example ... government officials ... already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to ... place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services. Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public."
4. "When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide."
5. "Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?"
6. "As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality."
7. "Throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. Strong families are thus vital for political freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life. The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue."

Auburn Journal Editorial by Jason Argenbright of Weimar

Homosexuality is a sin that degrades marriage:
In response to Tom Cavallero's letter that "God is powerful enough to handle gay marriage" (Aug. 31), I would like to say that you are absolutely right. God will handle gay marriage as he does every other type of sin: very justly.
Homosexuality is no different than any other sin. To God, sin is sin. He hates it all. We "keyboard preachers" as you call us, do not selectively interpret the Bible. It is very clear that God despises sexual perversion and homosexuality (see Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis chapter 19 for more details).
The real problem is when the gays try to make you believe that it is a completely normal way of life. According to God, that would be the same as saying murder is normal and acceptable! Thankfully, for all sin there is hope in Jesus Christ. We as a people have that choice.
Now, let's look at homosexuality scientifically. Let's say that there is no God. That the entire universe just happened accidentally. Wouldn't it seem logical to say that homosexuality goes against every law of sexual nature? (Hopefully I don't need to explain that to you.) And since that is logically true, how can it be a good thing?
I really don't care what people do behind closed doors. It's when they feel that they have to take something sacred, that was created by God. (aka marriage), and turn it into a perversion of what was intended. To that I take offense! Homosexuals can call their unions anything they like, as long as they don't call it marriage.
Vote yes on Prop. 8.