• • Supreme [?] Court
• • Court's ruling clears way for gay marriage in 5 Western states
• • Supreme Court Undermines Marriage Law, Churches at Risk
• • Same-Sex Marriage and Threats to Religious Freedom: How Nondiscrimination Laws Factor In

Top

Just 12 years ago, it was illegal for gays and lesbians to marry anywhere in the U.S.

But Monday,‎ the drive to legalize same-sex marriage - which began some two decades ago as a seemingly far-fetched quest - neared final victory as the Supreme Court cleared the way for gays and lesbians to marry in 11 additional states, bringing the total to 30 plus the District of Columbia.

Now, more than half of Americans live in a state that offers, or will soon offer, what supporters call "marriage equality."

Social conservatives had seen the high court as their last hope to halt the rapid advance of gay marriage. But in a surprise move, the justices rejected without comment appeals from five states whose bans against same-sex marriage had been struck down by lower courts.

The decision means gay marriage will be legal even in the South. Virginia, one of the states whose laws were invalidated when the high court refused to intervene, began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples within hours.

By not issuing a formal ruling, the justices put off the question of whether the Constitution guarantees gays and lesbians a right to marry. Although the outcome does not set a legal precedent that binds lower courts, it did send a strong message that same-sex marriage could soon be legal across the country.

The court's decision made gay marriage immediately legal in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana and Wisconsin.

Six additional states will be affected because they are in the same federal appellate circuit court districts that have declared gay marriage bans unconstitutional: North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Colorado, Kansas and Wyoming. Separately, 19 states had legalized same-sex marriage.

The high court's action capped a legal and political reversal of nearly unprecedented proportions on what was once one of the nation's most divisive social issues.

 

Top

The U.S. Supreme Court chose not to take up several challenges to marriage, today. That's bad news for people who support the institution as the union of one man and one woman.

The impact is immediate in five states: Marriage is now redefined in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

The action-by-inaction is expected to have a negative impact in six additional states: Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Stuart Shepard gets a quick reaction from Focus on the Family Judicial Analyst Bruce Hausknecht. He says churches in those 11 states need to be paying special attention to how this may impact the use of their buildings.

Top

Abstract: Proponents of religious freedom have firmly established that same-sex marriage threatens religious freedom in a number of ways. In response, some have argued that certain threats to religious freedom discussed in this context have more to do with nondiscrimination laws than with the legal status of same-sex marriage. This argument reflects certain realities. Conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious freedom will often involve some type of previously adopted nondiscrimination law or policy, and nondiscrimination laws can impose burdens on religious freedom even in jurisdictions that do not legally recognize homosexual unions as marriages. But neither point diminishes the threat that same-sex marriage poses to religious freedom. Same-sex marriage is likely to trigger a number of conflicts between nondiscrimination laws and religious freedom that otherwise would not exist, and threats to religious freedom are no less troubling because they involve nondiscrimination laws and same-sex marriage, not just same-sex marriage.

Many scholars and analysts on both sides of the marriage debate now acknowledge that same-sex marriage threatens the free exercise of religious and moral conscience in a number of ways. These concerns have been discussed in a variety of sources.

In response, some sources have argued that certain threats to religious freedom identified in this context have more to do with nondiscrimination laws than with the legal status of same-sex marriage.[1] This argument reflects two realities.

First, in most conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious freedom, some kind of previously adopted nondiscrimination law or policy will play a role.

Second, nondiscrimination laws can threaten religious freedom even in jurisdictions that have not fully redefined marriage.

However, neither of these points diminishes the threat that same-sex marriage poses to religious freedom. Redefining marriage is likely to increase the number of conflicts between religious freedom and nondiscrimination laws significantly. Further, threats to religious liberty are no less troubling merely because they involve nondiscrimination laws and same-sex marriage, not just same-sex marriage by itself.

In America, liberty should be the starting point, not a begrudged afterthought, in every context of law and public policy. Many nondiscrimination laws included protections for religious and moral conscience when they were first enacted. Lawmakers should update those laws when radical legal changes such as same-sex marriage create new situations that are likely to trigger significant burdens on the free exercise of religious and moral conscience in the future.

Same-Sex Marriage Is Likely to Increase Conflicts Between Nondiscrimination Laws and Religious Freedom

Conflicts between religious freedom and nondiscrimination laws can occur even in jurisdictions that have not enacted laws conferring official recognition on homosexual unions. These cases present serious concerns of their own.[2] However, same-sex marriage is likely to increase the number of conflicts between religious freedom and nondiscrimination laws for at least five reasons.

First, by creating a presumption of sexual union, officially licensing homosexual relationships can trigger conflicts with religious and moral conscience that otherwise would not exist. In many cases, a person's sexual orientation is not relevant to individuals and institutions that hold traditional beliefs about marriage, family, and sexuality,[3] but it should surprise no one if people or groups with traditional beliefs about marriage, family, and sexuality draw a principled line at facilitating or expressing moral support for certain forms of sexual conduct.[4] Laws that officially recognize homosexual relationships-through same-sex marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships-make that kind of scenario more likely by creating a public presumption of sexual conduct.

Second, many religious and moral objections in this context might focus on the nature of marriage and family instead of more narrowly on the presumption of sexual conduct. Therefore, conflicts with religious freedom can be expected to arise in jurisdictions that force private citizens to participate in same-sex wedding ceremonies and celebrations. Many people of good will have "no objection generally" to providing services to same-sex couples, but assisting with a marriage ceremony is different because for many people that situation involves "religious significance" that certain other situations do not.[5] Similar conflicts are also likely to arise where certain professionals or charities object to providing services that involve placing children with same-sex couples.

Third, because it is precisely a marital union that is recognized under laws licensing same-sex marriages, the potential for conflicts to arise under "marital status" nondiscrimination laws will be greater in states that redefine marriage. According to one source, marital status nondiscrimination laws are "more common than laws banning sexual orientation discrimination" and less likely than sexual orientation nondiscrimination laws "to feature religious or conscience exemptions."[6]


 

Top

As a result of the decisions this week, 32 states are potentially forced to recognize so called "same-sex marriage" by edict of unelected federal judges holding life-time appointments.

Regardless of these legal setbacks, members of the National Coalition of Black Pastors and Christian Leaders, represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, vow to fight on.

Coalition member, Pastor Danny Holliday, of Victory Baptist Church, Alton, IL commented: "Just as the Supreme was all wrong on slavery, which resulted in the Civil War, it is all wrong on legalizing same-sex marriage. I have seen prayer removed from schools, Christmas Nativity Scenes removed from public property. I have watched as the words Merry Christmas have become taboo. I have watched the news as we were told that Courts have ruled that crosses were now illegal on Government property, many of them in place since the World Wars."

Janet Boynes, Evangelist and author of "ARISE", who is a former lesbian, also expressed disappointment in the Court's ruling not to hear the cases, "It is a sad day when the Supreme Court, in its own way, comes out in support of gay marriage by refusing to hear our appeals."

 

North Carolina dominated America's narrowing debate over gay marriage Thursday, with GOP leaders hiring one of the country's best-known opponents to same-sex unions to defend the state's ban in court.

California law professor John Eastman took little time getting involved in the fight, filing motions in two of North Carolina's marriage cases to give the General Assembly a role and more time to make its arguments.

In a ruling Thursday night, U.S. District Judge William Osteen gave legislators only part of what they wanted - denying them the eight days they sought to review the files, and setting a noon Friday deadline for the Republicans to file expanded arguments.

In an order submitted by Osteen late Thursday, the judge said the legislators had not persuaded him of their need for extra time.

WASHINGTON -- Bucking a nationwide trend, a federal judge in Louisiana upheld a state ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday, writing that "any right to same-sex marriage is not yet so entrenched as to be fundamental" and that gay marriage was "inconceivable until very recently."

"The Court is persuaded that a meaning of what is marriage that has endured in history for thousands of years, and prevails in a majority of states today, is not universally irrational on the constitutional grid," U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman, who was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, wrote.

Feldman noted that his was the only federal court to uphold a gay marriage ban since the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act last year.

"It would no doubt be celebrated to be in the company of the near-unanimity of the many other federal courts that have spoken to this pressing issue, if this Court were confident in the belief that those cases provide a correct guide," Feldman wrote.