I was listening to NPR’s talk of the nation on they way back from lunch today and the topic was the tactics used in the battle for legalizing gay marriage. The host was having a hard time keeping anyone on topic, but gave it his best. One of the guests (Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage) mentioned that if it was going to be legalized she preferred it be done by legislatures rather than courts so provisions protecting freedom of religion. So far I understood and can sympathize with her point, but then she said that she didn’t mean the right for clergy to refuse to marry gays and lesbians, which she said was covered by the First Amendment, but other infringements that came from allowing gay marriage.
What was she talking about? She was not able to follow up since that was off topic, but what rights are being infringed upon?
The two examples I can think of are the Catholic adoption agency in Massachusetts being required to extend adoption services to gay couples, which ending up ceasing operations instead of complying with the law, and a Jersey shore church’s boardwalk pavilion losing its tax-exempt status because of the refusal to allow same-sex civil unions on the property.
I think the fear is that cities/states that don’t allow exclusionary groups to use public facilities will include churches that don’t allow gay marriage in such prohibitions. As being against gay marriage is a religious tenant for some churches, they claim this would infringe on their right to practice their religion.
For example, the City of Berkely stopped letting the Boy Scouts (err…or some Boy Scout related group, I forget, it was a long time ago) use the city docks for tying up their boats for free, because the Scouts wouldn’t allow gay members.
I’m pretty dubious that there’s much of a threat , but that’s the talking point as I understand it.
From what I’ve heard from people who are opposed to gay marriage, the religious right being infringed upon is the right of religious people to impose their beliefs on others, regardless of their own beliefs.
Those are some of the examples that I was thinking of.
Basically, they don’t think it will be a case of “we’ll have our marriage over here, and we won’t bother you”, they think that churches might be forced to allow wedding ceremonies for gay couples, that gay couples might demand places on religious retreats, that gay activists will storm churches, or will prevent them giving services that criticise gays.
Tbh, given the attitudes of some people on here, its no surprise that they think the “gays” are coming for them.
My take: if you receive federal money - then you can’t discriminate - else you’ll lose the funding. That’s not impinging on your religious right. You don’t have a right to the federal money in the first place. Re: gay activists storming a homophobic church - what does it have to do with gay marriage?
Oh, please. Bigots like this ALWAYS feel that way. The Jews are plotting against them, gays are planning to convert their children, women are evil temptresses leading them into sin, blacks want to marry their daughters, and on and on.
And LurkMeister has it right; the “religious freedom” they fear will be violated is their “right” to harass and coerce those who disagree with them.
There’s also the issue of [del]bigoted[/del] business owners who’d be forced to extend the same benefits to their gay employees’ spouses as they do to straight employees’ spouse in violation of their religious beliefs. :rolleyes: Or some poor Christian clerk/civil registrar who has to choose between joining gay couples in civic matrimony and his civil service job.
I am pretty religious holding an ordained position and a leader in Boy Scouting. There is NOTHING that impinges on my freedom to worship that comes from legalizing gay marriage. In fact, I support gay marriage (or, in truth - I support making it civil unions for all and making the term “marriage” one of cultural, not legal significance).
The way it COULD impinge in my opinion would be if ministers are required to perform gay marriages or lose the church’s non-profit status.
Would a synagogue lose its tax exempt status if it didn’t allow Christians to get married in it? Churches should be allowed to wed or not wed whoever they want, since the people wanting to get married can go to a courthouse.
But those were both instances of a religious organzation acting in a non-religious capacity. If a church is going to dabble in the market, it has to follow the restrictions that apply to everyone else in the market.