Religious freedom and “Government out of marriage”
CommentsI’ve expressed in the past my opposition to the “get the government out of marriage” so-called compromise to the SSM controversy. I have said that it’s not a compromise because one side gets nothing. But I’m starting to rethink that.
If the government gets out of the marriage business, and every person and organization gets to decide for themselves what marriage is or isn’t, maybe that’s a compromise that would accommodate my religious-freedom concerns. Why can’t, for example, a caterer only accommodate those weddings she believes are actually weddings? The government has no stance on what marriage is.
If the government has no stance on what marriage is, it seems to me that a lesbian teacher could teach that marriage can be between two women, and an Orthodox Jewish teacher can teach that marriage cannot. Curriculum on marriage and the family can be written by each school district with the guidance of the elected or appointed school board.
I’m not saying I’d support such a compromise. But I would acknowledge that it is, indeed, a compromise.
I like this quote from Glenn T. Stanton at FoF:
“[SSM] deconstructs our understanding of marriage as an institution that solves the paradox of humanity: that we exist in two, male and female, and both need each other . . . and society needs them to need each other. It has no need of same-sex couplings. And since when did we shift the discussion from ideals to compromise? When the other side can achieve ANY of their goals sans judicial fiat, then maybe they will have a position to contribute anything to compromise.”
Good damn question.
Really, it all depends on what the culture says marriage is or is not. Even if the law is neutral, the culture will have to say something. Will the battle then be shifted from the government to the schools and the entertainment industry? If so, I don’t think there is much doubt which side will be calling the shots. (True, local school boards could have some sway, but as a whole the national educational establishment would be firmly on the side of defining marriage as between any two persons). Otherwise, I’d even be tempted by this compromise, but as is….
I like this quote from a letter from the Yes on 8 folk that went out 10/20/08 signed by Ron Prentice Yon8 campaign chair and (this is my favorite) Edward Dolesji, ED Cali Catholic Conference:
Equality California is advertising on its website that it has received a contribution of at least $10,000 from you. … Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error and restore Traditional Marriage. … Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. You would leave us no other reasonable assumption. The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to protectmarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published.
Just love a good threating blackmail message from a religious institution. Even David Benkof pulled out of his Prop 8 defense for the anti-semitic folk running the campaign. and for the ongoing homophobia.
But what is truly interesting is that the primary folk commenting here (Chairm, Fitz, Marty) all chat and are cohorts over at the OPINE Editorial.
My question is that if the OPINE folk were truly victorious in rooting out the evil of homosexuality, would non-christian folk be next?
But you all go. . .remember GLBT folk also deserve the same respect you all proclaim to promote. Very Christ-like of you all.
DB: “If the government gets out of the marriage business, and every person and organization gets to decide for themselves what marriage is or isn’t, maybe that’s a compromise that would accommodate my religious-freedom concerns.”
Not if I have anything to do with it.
DB: “Why can’t, for example, a caterer only accommodate those weddings she believes are actually weddings? The government has no stance on what marriage is.”
Because a catering business is a public accommodation and the intent of anti-discrimination laws in public accommodations is to prevent denial of service and similar attacks on target classes. Period. The exact details of any sentiment intended to be expressed by the denial of service are immaterial because they’re not the basis of the objection in the first place. We don’t _care_ why you want to withhold service, we only care that you are not allowed to do it. We are not, at least through public accommodation laws, expressing any comment whatsoever on your religious views. We are saying only that, whatever your opinions and whether they’re religious or not, you will express them in speech and not denial of service.
DB: “If the government has no stance on what marriage is, it seems to me that a lesbian teacher could teach that marriage can be between two women, and an Orthodox Jewish teacher can teach that marriage cannot.”
It depends. If they’re teachers at totally private or sectarian schools not accepting public money then they can say pretty much whatever those schools allow them to say. But then that’s not new - there’s no law of general applicability against lying or being deliberately misleading or saying things that are considered deluded and so they can say such things with or without civil marriage and with or without civil SSM. Private schools and private teachers can teach _creationism_ if they want to, and it doesn’t get much more dishonest or deluded than that.
Public school teachers on the other hand can and should be held to a higher standard. As representatives of the government they have to adhere to a fairly strict standard of truth, and if the government doesn’t hold them to it, the courts have to hold the government to it. And against that background it seems that abandoning civil marriage doesn’t buy you anything. Where civil SSM is in force, the primary objection to Orthodox Jewish teachers saying that “marriage”, unqualified, “is” only between a man and a woman is that it’s willfully misleading - the government has appropriated the word and made it refer by default to something else which is _not_ between a man and a woman. But if the government has abandoned the field entirely due to a compromise between gay-rights advocates and religious conservatives, then it’s _still_ willfully misleading to say that “marriage”, unqualified, “is” only between a man and a woman, because all have agreed that, on the contrary, marriage is whatever people think it is.
That is, in going from SSM to no civil marriage at all, you’ve slightly reduced what a pro-gay teacher could non-misleadingly say (civil marriage isn’t the default meaning anymore, so things that assume that are off-limits), but you haven’t expanded what a religious conservative could similarly say (there’s then _no_ default meaning, and it’s willfully misleading to pretend there is).
DB: “I’m not saying I’d support such a compromise.”
I hope not, or I’d have to go and apologize to all the people to whom I explained that the compromise was stupid because, “The traditionalist side of the argument is trying to preserve marriage, as a state institution.” [DB in http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/2009/01/30/its-not-a-compromise-if-one-side-gets-nothing/ ] But if you’re now telling me that you’re sorely tempted to bargain it away for the right to deny service to same-sex couples, then maybe it wasn’t as stupid as I thought.
Supporters of same-sex “marriage” seem to enjoy the possibilities presented by anti-discrimination law being used as a weapon to force acquiescence to their cultural demands.
Obviously one can think of race and insert sexual orientation and imagine the possibilities. However; they may fail to realize that their opposition in this setting has more cards to play than is presumed. Public sympathy towards defenders of marriage aside, the courts themselves are not static. Multiple State supreme courts and Federal district courts as well as SCOTUS have conservative majorities and/or strong conservative minorities. Indeed even the judicial fiat to date has only ruled in favor of same-sex “marriage” along split decisions. (And those in the most gay friendly cherry picked courts in the nation)
Feminists ran into this same problem in the 70’s with the ERA and dreams of absolute gender equality throughout the law. Now the public culture largely holds even the term feminism in derision & the Courts have failed to deliver the parity they once dreamed of.
Counting chickens before there hatched is always a spirit booster. However: those considerable forces both of public opinion and elite judicial opinion have yet to paly their hand. Naive day dreaming that pre-supposes a stunning and complete route is both a-historical and counter factual.
This is a terrible idea. It will lead to the French system, where most hetero couples choose civil marriages, and that will erode the concept of marriage as we know it.
Marriage deregulation is, and has alway been, the ONLY logically consistent position to take on marriage as a state institution under the US constitution.
If your religion does not permit divorce, you can’t get a marriage that asserts that rule. If your religion wants to marry a gay couple, it’s not federally recognized.
Letting the gov define or enforce this institution is a violation of the establishment clause, since it imposes a blanket semi-religious institution on everyone. It forces everyone to adhere to a sickly legal compromise instead of letting different religions make their own assessment and enforce them through religious means, as has been done for centuries before governments got involved.
Just reverse the redefinition that made marriage a state sponsored/enforced institution, then we can stop arguing about “redefining” it, and leave it up to religious conscience.
This will, of course not happen, the majority who are milking the minority through marriage tax subsides don’t want to give it up. The only politically pragmatic solution is to expand the majority to include all couples.
I, as a person who plans not to marry, would much prefer the proper and logical solution, as I’m sick of subsidizing married people, and am not keen to widen the troth.
What does Gov. have to do with marriage, the answer is quiet simple. Marriage is the contractual agreement of mergers and aquasitions of personal property between 2 people (if you add more it becomes much more difficult in a court case in the event of an untimely death). So when 2 people get married through the state, marriage is quite clear in the end game….. gov. needs to get out of marriage on the basis that they are the public entity that truly discriminates. Now why can’t the churches and the homosexual community come together on this…. power, churches have it and gays want it….. anyone who fights on either needs to understand u are only hurting urself fighting each other and i will tell you why.
Democrates wisper in the gay community ear ” hey they are discriminating against you”, then the Repulicans wisper into the religious communities ear “hey this is religios persicution” and the result is you do not belong to your values u are cemented to your party.
now the church controls marriage which controls most republican ligislators on the issue of marriage, and homosexuals have won the sway of democrates (i AM a conservative and i DO think elitist democrats chop people into groups to get votes) to get more power in affirmative action. why is this important, the poeple you look to for education on the matter want you to pick thier ways cause own stock in a familar political party…. thus cementing people to a political part of the dems and repubs.
i am a libertarian i truly want government to back off of my personal beliefs, i am also an episcopalian the first priest i remember who baptised me was a homosexual, i grew up in a family that hated people who discriminated (i hope u get a laugh in that).
PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND GOVERNMEMT NEEDS TO BACK OFF OF MARRIAGE