Same-sex marriage and religious liberty
Does same-sex marriage pose a threat to religious freedom in America? Maggie Gallagher thinks so. Here's the very interesting article in The Weekly Standard that makes her case.
(Via Stanley Kurtz at The Corner)
(Via Stanley Kurtz at The Corner)
posted by Kate Marie | 10:37 AM | Permalink
|
6 comments
6 Comments:
Oh no. It sounds like a full employment act for lawyers.
What's next? Will seminaries have to admit atheists, pagans, wiccans, et al?
Same-sex marriage poses no more threat to religious liberty than interracial marriage or interfaith marriage or virtually any kind of marriage. Since marriage is an institution with analytically distinguishable but pragmatically inseperable civil and religious aspects it will always be a hot zone of potential conflict between the prerogatives of church and state. The question of whether or not the Catholic Church may discriminate against a gay couple is no more freighted with civil-libertarian import than whether it may discriminate against a couple that was married by a rabbi or a couple in which one or more partners had been divorced. When a religious organization seeks to interact with civil society at large it is always forced to confront potential conflicts between its credal principles and the beliefs and practices of outsiders, same-sex marriage poses no unique or irresoluble crisis.
Moreover, the question of religious freedom cuts both ways. Certain religious groups already perform same-sex marriages despite being denied the imprimatur of the state for these unions. The fact that those unions are denied the state sanction that secures the rights and privileges of other married couples is a more serious breach of state-church equilibrium than anything described by the Gallagher article.
Dear Madman,
What, no "Dear Kate Marie?"
What if I modified your last point thus?
"Certain religious groups already perform polygamous marriages despite being denied the imprimatur of the state for these unions. The fact that those unions are denied the state sanction that secures the rights and privileges of other married couples is a more serious breach of state-church equilibrium than anything described by the Gallagher article."
What's the difference?
There's nothing in the Constitution which suggests the state must legally sanction the religious practices of all religions. There is something in the Constitution about "free exercise," though. The Gallagher article and the example of the Catholic adoption agency bodes ill for religious liberty, in my opinion. You're correct that religious organizations are always forced to confront conflicts between their credal principles and the beliefs and practices of outsiders, but I don't see any reason to give Gallagher and her interviewees less credence than you when they argue that the conflicts in this area will be uniquely numerous and potentially far-reaching. You *may* be right, though.
I think that organizations like the Catholic adoption agency should be allowed to operate under a conscience exemption. You probably disagree. What I fear is a gradually increasing constriction of the space for traditional religious believers to operate in the public square, and that has all sorts of consequences for American society that go beyond the single issue of same-sex marriage.
Dear, Esteemed Kate Marie,
The case of polygamy is another example of the "hot zone" status of the civil/religious institution of marriage. I think the state is justified in tipping the church/state equilibrium in its favor with respect to polygamy where it is not in the case of same-sex marriage, you may disagree. But that still doesn't prevent the "religious freedom" issue from cutting both ways on these questions or any other potential conflict between civil and religious authority on the definition of marriage.
I don't have any problem (well, little problem) with a religious exemption for Catholic charities in cases like those of Massachusetts, I only object to the notion that the case of same-sex marriage portends some unique crisis in church-state relations. My favorite interviewee among Gallagher's pack was (predictably) Chai Feldblum, and I would agree with her observation that "When we pass a law that says you may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, we are burdening those who have an alternative moral assessment of gay men and lesbians." Religious exemptions like the one you propose are a pragmatic acknowledgment of this fact, and are part of a predictable church-state negotiation that would/will ensue should the movement to legalize same-sex marriage trend forward. I just don't accept that such a negotiation necessitates pessimism about church-state relations or the security of religious freedom in the US.
Dear, sage Madman,
On your second point, fair enough, but I'm not quite as sanguine as you about the future of church-state relations. The unwillingness of all but future-President Romney to consider a conscience exemption worries me.
On your first point, sure, polygamy is a "hot button" issue; I only meant to point out that the state is not constitutionally or legally obligated to sanction any religious practices; in other words, your example wasn't really a free exercise issue.
Before encouraging visitors to read the article, you should let them know that, like in most of Maggie's work, there are serious cases of misleading presentation of information -- which dramatically hinder the credibility of her arguments.
IIN THIS CASE - it is not that Catholic Charities refused to place children in qualified gay and lesbian households that caused the end of their adoption services, it is because they refused to even CONSIDER qualified gay and lesbian applications. There is a tremendous difference.
Furthermore, it was not even the decision of Catholic Charities to end their adoption services!!
The 42 member board of the Catholic Charities of Boston voted UNANIMOUSLY to continue considering the applications of qualified gay and lesbian families.
The four bishops of Massachusetts chose to override the decision of their own child welfare experts, and close ALL adoption services instead.
A simple google search would have turned up the fact that the information used as a source for this post(not unusual in any of Maggie's writing) was utterly misleading.
On a different note - does anyone have any idea if Maggie is still receiving tens of thousands of dollars from the Bush administration, to pass their marriage efforts off as journalism and academic -- as she was found out to be doing in 2003/4?
Post a Comment
<< Home