A piece on marriage equality in the New York Times

[dsc]

It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.

For those not immersed in the issue, our proposal may seem puzzling. For those deeply immersed, it may seem suspect. So allow us a few words by way of explanation.

Whatever our disagreements on the merits of gay marriage, we agree on two facts. First, most gay and lesbian Americans feel they need and deserve the perquisites and protections that accompany legal marriage. Second, many Americans of faith and many religious organizations have strong objections to same-sex unions. Neither of those realities is likely to change any time soon.

Further sharpening the conflict is the potential interaction of same-sex marriage with antidiscrimination laws. The First Amendment may make it unlikely that a church, say, would ever be coerced by law into performing same-sex wedding rites in its sanctuary. But religious organizations are also involved in many activities outside the sanctuary. What if a church auxiliary or charity is told it must grant spousal benefits to a secretary who marries her same-sex partner or else face legal penalties for discrimination based on sexual orientation or marital status? What if a faith-based nonprofit is told it will lose its tax-exempt status if it refuses to allow a same-sex wedding on its property?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/opinion/22rauch.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

Frankly this compromise is not acceptable to me unless at the very least hospitals and adoption agencies are not part of this exemption. I can see the local catholic church not being forced to employ a lesbian church secretary or gay church organist but I have a big problem with the local catholic hospital not permitting a man's husband to make medical decisions or a drug treatment center getting my money denying a female couple participation in family therapy.

I haven't seen this posted yet so it will be interesting to see what, if any, opinions there are.

[Beregond2]

1. Much too complicated.

This is why the government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. What ought to happen is, there should be legal civil unions, "marriage" left to churches, and all laws giving special status to married people should be declared discrminatory and unconstitutional. End of problem.

[DRoseDARs]

2. Giving "marriage" to churches is like giving "God" to the Christians...

You're giving to one group what does not belong solely them, all in them name of placating that group. It's wrong and counterproductive.

Anthropologists have debunked this "traditional marriage" nonsense for years...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4427900

Stop it. Stop trying to redefine marriage. Just stop it right now.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4700155

[BattyDem]

3. Why stop there?

If religious organizations will be exempt from recognizing federal law, why shouldn't other groups be exempt? Why should one group's "moral objection" to a particular civil rights law be rewarded? Why shouldn't other groups that have "moral objections" to African Americans or Muslims or women or atheists or immigrants be allowed to discriminate against those people?

Why should religious groups be given the right to ignore laws the rest of the country will be expected to follow? Why are their views being held in higher regard than the views of other groups? They complain that gay people want "special rights" but in reality, religious organizations will be the ones who are receiving special rights!

You can't exempt ANYONE from federal civil rights laws because once an exemption is given, other groups will be demanding exemptions, too - for any number of "moral" reasons.

This is a not a compromise - it's a Pandora's Box.

[Ms. Toad]

4. What is proposed is not an exemption

What is proposed is nonsense - created to address the false boogeyman that religious conservatives knew would (and did) get liberals on their side - the threat that government would intrude into matters of faith. It started circulating 2002-2004. I first heard it from a liberal friend of mine who was concerned about promoting marriage because she didn't think the state should be able to tell faith communities who they should marry.

The concern is a complete red herring. Think about it. Say I'm Catholic. I marry my sweetheart in a Catholic ceremony. Things go bad. We get divorced. A little while later, I fall in love again and waltz into my local Catholic church with my new sweetie. Am I legally eligible to marry? Yes. Is the Catholic church going to marry me? No - not unless I get an annulment in the church. Would anyone even dream of raising the concern that just because the state allows me to marry my new sweetheart that the Catholic church might be forced to marry us? Not a chance. Same (generally) for individuals seeking marriage who aren't members of a church, members who haven't gone through pre-marital counseling, or don't meet whatever other criteria the church chooses to impose. So why the big concern just because the marriage tent is has one more class of people that are legally eligible to marry?

Rather than humoring this as a serious compromise, we need to reject the underlying false and shameful fearmongering that generated the "need" for a compromise that "exempts" faith communities from marrying same gender couples. The law determines the outside parameters of who may legally marry within the state; faith marriages registered with the state have always been a subset of that group - no faith community has ever been required to marry all those who walk through the doors - and just because the group of those legally eligible to marry is a little larger will not change that fundamental relationship. The state permits faith communities to register marriages performed under their care - it has never required that faith community marry anyone legally eligible.

[dsc]

5. actually they would go much further

any religiously based organization would be permitted to discriminate no matter what the activity was. They specificly mention permitting discrimination in the provision of benefits.

[Ms. Toad]

6. What I want to address is the underlying false assertion

that churches are now, or would ever be, required to marry any couple that walks through their doors. It is based on twisting the relationship between legally recognized marriage and the church's role. If that relationship were not being maliciously twisted, there would be no need for an "exemption." Churches are NEVER required to marry all individuals who are legally eligible for marriage. There is NO need for an exemption related to marriage - and we should resist tying the two issues together by rejecting the underlying (triggering, false) assertion.

As to the general principle - I have some mixed feelings. The conscientious objector to war status exists now because of state deference to deeply held religious beliefs that prevent those holding such beliefs from participating in war or the preparation for war. It was a hard struggle, and many of my faith ancestors spent time in jail to earn the right not to be forced to violate their religious beliefs when the draft called. If those same series of cases had come to the Supreme Court in the post Employment Division v. Smith era, the decision might well have been different. (The Smith case held that generally applicable criminal laws that do not specifically target a particular religion may be applied against religious practices - effectively criminalizing the religious practices of many Native Nations which use peyote (or other banned substances) as part of their religion.)

I cannot reconcile believing that Native Nations should be able to use sacramental peyote without criminal penalties, or that the state should not be able to force me to take up arms, with a belief that faith communities should be required to hire individuals who are behaving in ways that are irreconcilable with the faith community's beliefs. (Note: It is a far different matter if the discrimination is associated with a faith entity that take federal or state money (transportation to and from school, special programs, etc. in church schools - for example) - in that case I have absolutely no trouble saying that if the entity wants our money it must not discriminate.)

[BattyDem]

7. Yes, I agree - the premise is completely false. Their "fear" isn't based in reality.

There is no need for a "compromise" like this, because the problem is imagined. Right now, no church can be forced to perform a marriage if they don't want to. They don't have to give a reason, they can simply deny the request. End of story. I don't see how same-sex marriage would change that.

However, as I understand it, this plan doesn't simply address churches and marriage. It would exempt any religious organization from discrimination laws because of "moral objections" ... which could mean anything. What would stop an organization from claiming a moral objection to employees who are part of an interracial couple, who are non-Christian, who practice pre-marital sex, etc.? :shrug: Of course, others will demand the same rights. A religious CEO could certainly claim a moral objection to a particular employee's religious beliefs or sexuality. What if a teacher morally objects to a child being raised by gay parents? Will that child be denied an education? What if we take it a step further and the principal has a moral objection to a teacher who morally objects to gay parents?? :crazy:

Once we start down the road of giving exemptions to discrimination laws to anyone who has a "moral objection" to equality, we create a country in which discrimination laws mean absolutely nothing.

edited: typo :blush:

[Ms. Toad]

8. There is at least a line that can be drawn

between requiring that people who are hired to do the work of the church act in accordance with the beliefs of the church, and requiring an employee of a non-church organization to act in accordance with the beliefs of the CEO (who just happens to hold particular religious beliefs).

Aside from that line, I'm not sure where the line should be drawn. Private schools are just that - they get to pick and choose which students they will educate as long as they don't take public money (and I don't agree with the fuzzy line that drawn that doesn't count books, supplies, and transportation, and vouchers as public money). Once a private school takes public money - and I would include the above categories as taking public money - it no longer has the right to discriminate against protected classes (even though, by their nature, they get to pick and choose who to educate).

Where it gets harder for me is when a non-private job or law requires someone to violate their religious beliefs (or prohibits them from practicing their beliefs). When military service is forced, I firmly believe that there needs to be provision for conscientious objection to war (which includes conscientious objection to boot camp - a requirement in all recent versions of the mandatory public service bills). Similarly, I don't believe Native Nations should be criminally liable for using banned substances which are part of their cultural/religious rituals. On the other hand, when someone voluntarily signs up for a job - the military, or being a pharmacist, for example - I have less patience with providing an exemption. They knew what the job entailed when they trained or signed up for the job.

That said, I accepted a job once knowing that performing certain parts of the job would violate my religious beliefs against participating in or perpetuating the death penalty. I discussed it with my potential employer before I accepted the job and part of those negotiations included reaching an agreement as to how those situations would be handled. The situation arose at least twice during my two year tenure in the job - and had I not negotiated ahead of time as to how to handle the situation, I would have resigned without any sense that I was entitled to do the job without having to perform that particular role.

But - the beliefs that bar me from participating in the death penalty are the same ones that leaves juries, judges (and the clerks who work for them) biased toward imposing the death penalty. Studies have shown that death qualified juries (i.e. anyone opposed to the death penalty is automatically excluded from sitting on the jury - and by extension serving on the bench or as a clerk to a judge who might hear or review death penalty cases) are more prone to convict, and more prone to impose the harshest penalties.