This November, Maine will once again put forward a same-sex marriage referendum, this time on the pro-SSM side. The text:
Right now, in every state, it is absolutely legal for a Jew to marry a Catholic. There are, however, very few rabbis who will perform a wedding ceremony for such a couple, because most Jewish denominations have a religious prohibition on exogamy, or at least strongly discourage it. As far as I know, there is no state compulsion for a rabbi to violate his or her religious practice by performing such a ceremony. Is the religious interest any different in the case of same-sex marriage?
Does the explicit exemption language serve any purpose other than to sugar-coat the law to make it more palatable to swing voters? If you oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds, would you vote for this referendum because of the explicit religious exemption, even if it doesn’t actually add anything to the law?
BTW, I’d guess that a reasonable majority of non-Orthodox rabbis would happily perform a same-sex wedding ceremony, as long as both partners were Jewish.
I don’t think swing voters are the issue. Some religious groups have said they’re worried they could be sued for refusing to perform same-sex weddings or accomodate same-sex couples or recognize the marriages some other way, and legislators feel it’s in their interest to make sure those people have their asses covered so they don’t complain any harder.
I’m not sure I follow your thought process. The exemption language there is to ensure that churches and faiths won’t be required to marry same sex couples if they don’t wish to. The law is/should only be concerned with what the State recognizes as a marriage and not what the Catholic Church, the Jewish synagogues, or the Spaghetti Monsters’ colanders recognize. I don’t think people should have the power to sue a Church because it refuses to marry him/her, and the language is there to avoid such possibilities. Kinda a CYA, as Marley points out.
It is a perfectly reasonable clause. I’d guess that forcing religious officials to marry anyone would not be permitted under the First Amendment anyway
Why give them anything else to scream about?
I like it because it might encourage secular marriages and forward our evil atheist goals! Beats Hi Opal anyway.
I don’t know. When we got married my wife checked with the college rabbi at Dartmouth, where she was going, and he wanted nothing to do with us.
I’m assuming no conversion involved. With conversion I suspect most would do it.
Right, but I’m very skeptical that these clauses are necessary anyway. As far as I know churches don’t have to marry anybody they don’t feel like marrying, and I’ve never heard anybody give a plausible explanation of why that would become a problem when gay couples are concerned if it’s not an issue when, say, a Catholic wants to marry a Protestant and a Catholic Church refuses to marry them.
Which part? OK, maybe I should have said pulpit rabbis. I’m nearly certain no Orthodox rabbi would perform a mixed marriage, and, as a member of a Conservative congregation, I know for a fact that performing a mixed-marriage is grounds for a Conservative rabbi to be kicked out of the Rabbinical Assembly (which means they cannot be hired by a member congregation). The Reform movement gives its rabbis autonomy on this issue, but I’m still pretty sure the Reform movement discourages exogamy without at least a commitment that any children will be raised as Jewish. Catholic priests, I think, have a similar approach–only marrying a Catholic and non-Catholic if a commitment is made that the kids will be Catholic.
In any case, has anyone ever sued a rabbi or priest for refusing to perform a mixed marriage? Under what grounds? How is SSM different?
It’s a common thing for people against SSM to say that religious figures will be forced to perform same sex marriages (and also that they will be prohibited from preaching against homosexuality). Obviously, this is nonsense, but so is the entire movement against SSM, so there you go. The clauses are there to shut up the nutbars, not that it helps.
Exactly. It’s just to shut people up. Of course officiants and churches wouldn’t be required to perform weddings for random people on demand, but this is a commonly expressed fear among those opposed to SSM. The clause is completely unneccesary but having it removes that purported objection.
What was that case in NJ a few years ago where a church was sued for not accommodating a same sex marriage? It was something like they had a facility available for weddings but refused to rent it to a same-sex couple, and the church lost. I’m probably completely misremembering the case. Even though it wasn’t a case of the church being forced to marry anyone, I think it worried some religious conservatives.
I buy that it’s just a way to cut off one avenue of opposition, whether or not it has any practical effect. Should we expect a more muted opposition as a result, or will the objections now just be louder in other areas (squeezing on the balloon, as it were)? What’s left?
You’re probably thinking of the suit involving a pavilion owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which is affiliated with the Methodist Church. The pavilion was located on or near the boardwalk - public property - in Ocean Grove, New Jersey. The Association had been granted an exemption from taxes on the pavilion (which they did not use as a religious space) in exchange for making the pavilion available to the general public. When two same-sex couples tried to rent the pavilion for weddings, the Association refused. The couples sued. The Association argued that the refusal was legal because it was in line with the Methodist Church’s religious principles. The lawyer for the couple argued that “the general public” includes same-sex couples, and that the Association had agreed to such use when it negotiated the tax break. The Association was given the choice of keeping its tax break and renting the pavilion to same-sex couples, or giving up its tax break and being able to place limits on the kind of couples to whom they rented. The Association chose to give up its tax break.
I know from personal experience that very few rabbis will marry a Jew and a non-Jew. If the non-Jew converts first, then of course there’s no problem. But without a conversion we had to search quite hard. And this is in the San Francisco area, which is quite liberal in most respects.
I can’t imagine any Rabbi getting sued for refusing to marry a mixed couple or any Catholic Priest getting sued for refusing to marry two divorcees.
For that matter, I can’t imagine any lawsuit by either a Muslim or a Jewish couple demanding they be allowed to be married in an Episcopal Church not getting thrown out of court.
I believe so. There was recently a church (in Kentucky? not sure) who kicked out a couple members who were in an interracial relationship with one another, and there were no legal recriminations that I am aware of.
If there is one thing that is true of lawyers that is if you give them any ambiguity, one of them will pounce on it. There’s probably one out there right now drafting a complaint about this very thing claiming that refusing to perform a SSM can be distinguished from a Catholic Priest refusing to marry a non-Catholic.
To cut this off at the pass (and if most people think existing law covers it anyways, what’s the harm adding a meaningless clause?) the legislature includes the seemingly redundant language so the attorney doesn’t even think of filing.
Even if the church would ultimately win at trial, the law saves them from having to go to court.
It’s a meaningless clause. There’s no way that any church would be forced to perform a ceremony that violated their religious principles, and there’s very little desire in the gay community to force them to do so. However, anti-marriage activists are, on the whole, dishonest scumbags, and they freely use the specter of churches being forced to perform gay marriages to frighten people into voting against it.
The line the OP is asking about was included to rebut that specific lie. But, since it’s about an idea that’s being spread by liars, I expect they’ll simply lie about the line being in the bill. Realistically, it’s about as necessary as including a rider that specifies that the bill won’t reverse the Earth’s gravity. But if it can convince even one person to change his vote to “Yes” on SSM, it’s worth it.
Beats Hi Opal anyway.