Does Mississippi's "religious freedom" bill open the door to gay marriage?

[davidm]

Mississippi has passed their so-called “religious freedom” bill, SB 2681 and the governor says that he will sign it.

Mississippi Lawmakers Approve Religious Freedom Bill SB 2681, Gov. Phil...

Mississippi lawmakers in both chambers of the legislature passed the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act (SB 2681) Tuesday. Gov. Phil Bryant (R) has said he will sign the bill. When it becomes law it will prohibit the state from taking action that “burden” a citizen’s right to religious exercise. LGBT activists have attacked the bill as discriminatory.

The legislation was approved in the Mississippi House with a 78-43 vote and was approved in the Senate with a wide majority, according to BuzzFeed.

A copy of the bill defines “burden” as “any action that directly or indirectly constrains, inhibits, curtails or denies the exercise of religion by any person or compels any action contrary to a person’s exercise of religion.”

This Blog speculates that Unitarian Universalist’s can use this bill to perform legal same sex marriages in the state.

Will SB 2681 become the basis for legalizing gay marriage in Mississippi?

The Unitarian Universalist Church has, since 1996, sanctioned same-sex marriages. There are UU churches in Ellisville (hello, Chris McDaniel!), Gulfport, Hattiesburg, Jackson, Oxford, and Tupelo. What happens when they perform a same-sex wedding ceremony after the enactment of SB 2681, and that couple attempts to have their marriage recognized by the state or a local government?

And what happens when the ensuing court battle inevitably makes its way to the United States Supreme Court? That’s the same court that recently struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, for what it’s worth.

Are they right? Could someone successfully fight the state for the right to marry based on this bill?

[davidm]

And what about Fundamentalist Mormons and plural marriage?

[chacoguy]

or Rastafarians?

[Marley23]

Is this ever going to go into effect or is it just going to get challenged in court immediately?

[davidm]

@Marley23

Is this ever going to go into effect or is it just going to get challenged in court immediately?

You’re probably right, but there’s a perverse part of me that wants to see Mississippians’ heads explode when some obscure religion that believes in marrying dogs starts buying up land in Mississippi.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@chacoguy

or Rastafarians?

or Pastafarians?

[Farin]

@Snowboarder_Bo

or Pastafarians?

Are pastafarians going to marry their pasta? Would the wedding night then involve murder?

[Smapti]

I don’t see how it’s relevant. The state’s ban on same-sex marriage doesn’t currently preclude the UUs from performing samesex weddings, it just denies them state recognition.

[davidm]

But wouldn’t a newer bill supercede an older bill? And wouldn’t the state denying them all of the rights that come with marriage be a violation of their religious beliefs?

[UDS]

From the OP, the bill doesn’t protect religious beliefs; it protects the exercise of religion. Does the failure to recognise a church-celebrated SSM prevent the church or its members from celebrating SSM marriage ceremonies? Does it prevent them from “exercising” their religion in any other way?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@UDS

From the OP, the bill doesn’t protect religious beliefs; it protects the exercise of religion. Does the failure to recognise a church-celebrated SSM prevent the church or its members from celebrating SSM marriage ceremonies? Does it prevent them from “exercising” their religion in any other way?

It prevents members who are married to someone of the same gender from being recognized as married, so I’d say that’s a pretty heavy burden for the married couple to live with: living as tho they were not, in fact, married.

[Smapti]

@davidm

But wouldn’t a newer bill supercede an older bill? And wouldn’t the state denying them all of the rights that come with marriage be a violation of their religious beliefs?

Is there any church that has state recognition of its marriage ceremonies as an integral part of its beliefs, though?

[Lord_Feldon]

@davidm

But wouldn’t a newer bill supercede an older bill?

A newer ordinary law wouldn’t supersede an older section of the constitution of Mississippi, no.

Even if this bill would require that same-sex marriage be made legal, that is not something that the legislature of Mississippi is empowered to do.

[davidm]

I didn’t realize that it was in their constitution.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Farin

Are pastafarians going to marry their pasta? Would the wedding night then involve murder?

Nah–just canoodling.

[puddleglum]

@Snowboarder_Bo

It prevents members who are married to someone of the same gender from being recognized as married, so I’d say that’s a pretty heavy burden for the married couple to live with: living as tho they were not, in fact, married.

So their religion requires other people to recognize them as married? This is non-sensical. U-Us are free to perform gay marriages as they much as they like. What this bills says is that they can not use the state to coerce people into recognizing the marriage if it is against their religion.

[Little_Nemo]

A law is only enforced as far as the legal system enforces it. The legal system in Mississippi would undoubtedly choose to use this law to restore the religious freedom of Christian conservatives. Other religious beliefs would find they’re being left out.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Little_Nemo

A law is only enforced as far as the legal system enforces it. The legal system in Mississippi would undoubtedly choose to use this law to restore the religious freedom of Christian conservatives. Other religious beliefs would find they’re being left out.

Agreed. I have a difficult time believing that in the brief time the law is in effect before it gets struck down that members of Native American religions that smoke hallucinogens will get left alone in Mississippi.

[Pork_Rind]

@Farin

Are pastafarians going to marry their pasta? Would the wedding night then involve murder?

Pastafarianism

[Little_Nemo]

@Ibn_Warraq

Agreed. I have a difficult time believing that in the brief time the law is in effect before it gets struck down that members of Native American religions that smoke hallucinogens will get left alone in Mississippi.

I’m reminded of the legislator who enacted a law that funded religious schools and was then shocked when a Muslim school applied for the funds. The legislator ended up denouncing her own law and explaining how she thought everyone would understand that when she had said religion she meant only Christianity.