FYI..
[CNN]
Will gay rights infringe on religious liberty?
By Marc D. Stern , Special to CNN
March 25, 2013 -- Updated 0933 GMT (1733 HKT)
CNN.com
Editor's note: Marc D. Stern is the general counsel of the American Jewish
Committee and a contributor to the book, "Same-Sex Marriage and Religious
Liberty."
(CNN) -- It was inevitable that the debate over same-sex marriage would have a
strong religious component. This is partly because it involves such questions
as the interpretation of biblical passages that, on their face, condemn
homosexuality as a sin. But it also involves squaring the authority of ancient
texts with modern theological understanding and developments in biology. And of
course, the importance of love and human autonomy as religious values should be
considered.
Those issues surfaced in the various briefs filed in the Supreme Court, some of
which are written as if the court must inevitably choose one religious point of
view as the winner and the other as the loser. This is a false choice. The
Court can make all winners, or at least avoid allowing one side to suppress the
other's deepest beliefs.
The U.S. Supreme Court has not been asked -- nor could it possibly answer --
the question of what God or the Bible thinks about same-sex marriage. Religious
groups are divided on that question, some supporting and others opposing
same-sex marriage. And even if the religious viewpoint were clear, it should
play no direct role in deciding whether the Constitution requires the states or
the federal government to recognize same-sex marriage. Our government should
not act to further one or another religious view of contested moral issues.
Opinion: The real 'modern family' in America
Neither the court nor government may referee religious disputes. Under the
Constitution, religious groups are free to urge and put into practice their
different visions of the good, of moral life, and compete for adherents in the
marketplace of ideas. Winners and losers are determined by the "votes" of
individuals and congregations, of believers and nonbelievers, not by government
bodies.
GOP shift on same-sex marriage
No straight weddings allowed
DOMA's effect on same-sex couples
Neither can citizens opposed to same-sex marriage demand that the government
refuse recognition to such marriages in order to avoid offending their
religious sensibilities.
Religious liberty, as the American Jewish Committee told the Supreme Court
recently in a friend-of-the-court brief, does not give anyone the right to
demand that someone else be deprived of the "right to live the most intimate
portions of their lives according to their own deepest convictions." That some
religious groups regard same-sex marriage as an "abomination" does not
authorize the government to ban such relationships. That is one price we all
pay for protecting religious liberty.
Conversely, when government does recognize same-sex marriage, it creates a new
set of problems for the liberties of religious believers. These extend well
beyond the right of clergy or houses of worship not to perform or host same-sex
ceremonies, or the right of religious institutions opposed to same-sex marriage
to remain tax exempt.
Sutter: The county where no one's gay
Among other likely questions that will arise are these:
-- Must rabbis, priests and pastors provide religious marriage counseling to
same-sex couples?
-- Must religious colleges provide married-student housing to same-sex couples?
-- Must churches and synagogues employ spouses who are in same-sex marriages,
even though such employees would be persistently and publicly flouting the
religious teachings they would be hired to promote?
-- Must religious social service agencies place children for adoption with
same-sex couples? Already, Catholic Charities in Illinois, Massachusetts, and
the District of Columbia have closed their adoption units because of this issue.
Resolving these conflicts will not be easy. In some instances the rights of
same-sex couples will unavoidably trump religious liberty rights -- for
example, the much discussed question of visits to spouses in intensive care
units. But there will be cases where religious liberty will trump, and same-sex
couples will have to accept the reality that not everyone accepts their
relationships as legitimate. This, too, is a price to be paid for religious
liberty.
Same-sex couples should not be denied the right to civil marriage; that is the
immediate issue in the cases now before the Supreme Court. And when that right
is secured, same-sex couples should not, without very good reason, be allowed
to force dissenting religious organizations to recognize or facilitate their
marriages.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Marc D. Stern.
© 2013 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All
------------------------------------
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : [email protected]
List owner : [email protected]
Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
