Scholars Ponder Same
- Sex Marriage Issues
By AP from the
NYTimes on the Web, May 27, 2006
While many religious groups are
lobbying against gay marriage, some scholars say they also need to look ahead
and ponder the practical problems if such unions are one day widely legalized.
Their take: If gay marriage becomes recognized under law across the
country, religious groups could face challenges to customary ways of doing
business, even to their finances.
Although 19 states have passed anti-gay marriage amendments, Marc D. Stern,
general counsel of the American Jewish Congress and an influential ally of
liberals on church-state separation, thinks widespread legalization of same-sex
unions is inevitable.
From his perspective, that will cause major problems for religious agencies
unless they start a campaign now so their ability to dissent is guaranteed.
Already, he notes, Catholic Charities Boston ended a century of adoption
services because an anti-discrimination law requires placements with same-sex
couples in Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is now legal.
Some gay rights advocates agree that conflicts would be inevitable but argue
that public interest in ending discrimination should take precedence over claims
of religious freedom.
''We are in a zero-sum game in terms of moral values,'' says Chai Feldblum of
Georgetown University's Law Center, a veteran gay rights advocate.
Government must choose sides.
Stern and Feldblum were among seven experts whose papers on gay marriage and
religious rights were issued this month by Washington's Becket Fund for
Religious Liberty and given added buzz by coverage in the conservative Weekly
Standard.
Specialists say religions' legal leverage was weakened by the Supreme Court's
1990 Employment Division v. Smith decision, which ended the requirement that
government must show a ''compelling interest'' before restricting religious
freedom.
Charles Haynes, religion specialist with Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center,
says liberals and conservatives strongly united behind religious liberty after
the Smith ruling, but liberal support has collapsed over the gay issue.
In future marriage conflicts, Haynes says, ''we need to protect religious
liberty to the greatest extent possible, because that is a core principle that,
from the beginning of our history, has really made this American experiment in
freedom work.''
Stern, an Orthodox Jew, cited more than 200 cases he said signal future trouble
for agencies and individuals that uphold historic Jewish and Christian
opposition to gay marriage. Pertinent laws cover a myriad number of areas
including public accommodations, employment, housing, municipal contracts,
college admissions and even tax exemption.
He said nonprofit or commercial religious agencies that aren't owned directly by
churches and synagogues would be hardest hit because their exemption from legal
rules is less secure.
Robin Fretwell Wilson, a University of Maryland law professor, said the record
with legalized abortion indicates what might happen.
Once women gained the right to choose, she noted, activists filed numerous
lawsuits trying to force religious hospitals and individuals to provide a
procedure they considered immoral. Wilson predicted the same costly
conflict for religious groups that reject same-sex weddings or same-sex couples,
unless they win clear legal exemptions.
Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School favors gay marriage
but worries that after legalization, government would threaten faiths that
oppose same-sex marriage with loss of tax exemption.
The reason is the Supreme Court's 1983 ruling that removed Bob Jones
University's tax exemption over its religious opposition (since modified) to
interracial dating and marriage because it violated public policy.
Douglas Kmiec of Pepperdine University finds it inconceivable that courts would
extend a ruling on Bob Jones' ''morally repugnant'' racial beliefs to
religiously principled opposition to gay relationships.
But on the liberal side, the basis for opposing same-sex unions doesn't matter.
Washington attorney Russell Upton wrote in the American University Law Review
that the Boy Scouts -- who ban gay leaders and oppose gay sex -- should lose
state tax exemption because ''government should not subsidize discrimination.''
And Feldblum says that ''without a doubt'' that eradicating bias is ''a
compelling goal'' for government.
To her, that trumps a religious foundation for excluding gay couples.
|
