Pam Spaulding: More bleating about marriage equality's threat to religious liberty [with editor's note]

Link: Pam's House Blend

Editor's Note: Below, Pam Spaulding notes one post out of a growing symphony of opponents who seek to alarm religious adherents about the purported threat to their freedoms posed by marriage equality. (For a recent overwrought example, see David Benkof on Maggie Gallagher's blog.)

Reference to the Ocean Grove, New Jersey boardwalk pavilion controversy is common. Usually omitted from the story, however, are crucial details. In this case, opponents of the freedom to marry leverage such controversies to attack access to marriage (or civil unions, or domestic partnerships) for same-sex couples.

But the root of the controversy lies more deeply, in this case over control of property that sits on public land and received a tax exemption based on the Camp Meeting's assurance that the facility was open to all segments of the public on an equal basis -- which turned out to be untrue.

Such disputes are common throughout the nation, not because gay couples seek the freedom to marry, but also at many of the interfaces between religion and broader public purposes -- taxation, land use, permit processes, noise ordinances, parking, traffic, and so on. Gays' freedom to marry is but one frictional point of many.

Seeking to lay this at the feet of same-sex couples and to link it to access to marriage is a clear effort at diversion. (As is reference to controversies outside the U.S., in areas that have no First Amendment protections for religion and speech.)

Another common reference is to the troubles encountered by Catholic Charities of Boston when it decided to end all of its adoption services rather than comply with a state requirement that gays be considered as adoptive parents on the same basis as others. But what are we to make of the fact that Catholic Charities of San Francisco was able to cooperate with other groups to find a way to place needy children after it found itself subject to California's anti-discrimination laws?:

San Francisco Chronicle, August 27, 2006 - In an adroit end-run against a Vatican ban on granting adoptions to same-sex couples, Catholic Charities of San Francisco will launch a new project in coming weeks that experts say will lead to the placement of hundreds of foster children around the state every year.

While the agency will no longer directly place children in homes, it will provide staff and financial resources to connect needy children to adoptive parents, expanding from 25 placements a year to assisting in the adoptions of as many as 800 children annually, say those involved in the program.

The move averts a conflict between state anti-discrimination laws and church doctrine, which considers the placement of children with gay or lesbian couples to be "gravely immoral.''

"The Lord works in mysterious ways,'' quipped San Francisco Supervisor Bevan Dufty, a gay Jew who was a consultant to Catholic Charities while the adoption strategy was being crafted.

"In the interests of the children and for prospective parents, this will be a great improvement,'' says Dufty, who is having a child in October with a lesbian friend. "Two years from now, we will look back and see what a big step this was in getting children placed.''

Rychlak and the other opponents of the freedom to marry would serve their communities better by asking why Catholic Charities in California could do what Catholic Charities in Massachusetts could not: work collaboratively and leave all parties whole.

Attitude seems to make a difference. And finding commonalities and forging new alliances between former opponents is certainly more likely to lead to any refinements in laws that would minimize (but of course never eliminate) clashes of interest. As same-sex couples become more integrated into their communities, opportunities for cooperation will abound. The question is, will those now in active opposition to these couples' freedoms be able to shift to a stance that maximizes the common good? 

Excerpt from Pam Spaulding:

I will give Ronald Rychlak props for one thing -- bringing the objection of religious institutions to gay and lesbian couples marrying to the bottom $$$ line. 

Regardless of what it is called, legal sanctioning of homosexual relationships creates a host of unintended consequences and constitutes a serious threat to religious liberty. 

Consider what happened in Massachusetts in 2004: Justices of the peace who refused to preside over same-sex unions due to moral or religious objections were summarily fired. Since same-sex unions were entitled to be treated the same as traditional marriages, this refusal was discrimination and a firing offense. 

What about a priest or minister who similarly refuses to preside at such ceremonies? Obviously the state can't fire such people, but it is easy to foresee other sanctions -- such as loss of tax benefits -- being imposed on churches.

The piece cites the NJ complaint by a lesbian couple who wanted to use a Methodist ministry-owned pavilion for their civil union ceremony. While it was allowed to ban same-sex couples, the Garden State revoked the ministry's tax-free status. 

These people fail to realize that the government doesn't have to subsidize, through tax-breaks, a church's ability to discriminate. More whining: 

If homosexual marriages or civil unions are the equivalent of traditional marriages, you can't discriminate. If you do, at the very least you put your government benefits at risk. 

This is the same rationale that was used by the Supreme Court in 1983 to uphold stripping Bob Jones University of its tax-exempt status due to its racial policies.

[jw]