 |
 |
Not everyone was happy about this month's California marriage ruling. Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, joined others in invoking religion while speaking out against the decision overturning a voter-approved ban on gay marriage. (Photo by Steve Yeater/AP)
|
|
|
| | |
| |
|
|
| | |
HOME > NEWS > NATIONAL NEWS
By: JOEY DiGUGLIELMO COMMENTS
 
| Editors’ note: This is part one in a two-part series in which the Blade invited legal experts to address some of the arguments raised by opponents of same-sex marriage in light of the May 15 California Supreme Court ruling. In this issue, the ramifications of the ruling are considered in the areas of religious freedom. Read part two here |
|
The May 15 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in California reignited intense debate over the issue and demonstrated that, regardless of what the justices decided or how voters there will react to a ballot referendum in November, the controversial subject isn’t likely to go away anytime soon.
Reaction to this month’s ruling was predictable. Notoriously anti-gay groups like Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council and others decried the ruling as an outrage.
Reaction among gay activists was the inverse, with leaders from groups like Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force heaping praise on the justices.
“Frequently asked questions” sections of the web sites of the aforementioned organizations (and others) address the issues raised by those on opposite sides of the ideological divide. But clearly the concerns of many anti-gay groups haven’t been addressed to their satisfaction.
Entire books have explored many of these issues (from various viewpoints) but following are brief responses from gay rights experts to some of the tougher marriage-related questions.
pan style="font-weight: bold;">pan style="font-style: italic;">Gay activists and pro-gay legislators have assured religious leaders whose churches and synagogues teach that homosexuality is forbidden that they won’t be forced to marry same-sex couples because gays are only interested in the civil benefits of marriage. But what about religious adoption agencies or daycare centers? Will they be forced to accommodate gays?
Experts say organizations that receive state and federal funding will not be allowed to oppose working with gays for religious reasons. Some, most notably Catholic Charities of Boston (gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts), have opted to get out of the adoption business rather than be forced to allow gays to adopt.
Esther Rothblum, a professor of women’s studies at San Diego State University who published a three-year study on the effects of Vermont’s civil unions, said Catholic Charities’ decision is “probably a good one.”
“You hear people say, ‘But what about those poor kids’ and all that,” said Rothblum, who is a lesbian. “What people seem to forget is that adoption is a big business in this country with lots of money at stake. The people at these agencies, the middle people, get a lot of money.”
But in California, where gay adoption and custody laws were already in place before last week, the state’s Supreme Court ruling will have no impact (Catholic Charities in San Francisco previously tangled with the Catholic Church when it was discovered that it had facilitated some gay adoptions; the organization now works as a referral-type service).
pan style="font-weight: bold;">pan style="font-style: italic;">Apart from state- or federally funded religious programs, could the legalization of same-sex marriage in California prevent priests and ministers from preaching that homosexuality is biblically forbidden? Could churches in time risk their tax-exempt status by refusing to marry gays?
That remains to be seen and will likely result in a steady stream of court battles.
Chai Feldblum, a lesbian and professor of law at Georgetown University, said lawsuits in this area are inevitable but that she’s confident the courts will exercise “common sense.”
“The state will have trouble with some of these things,” she said. “Let’s say it’s a Christian daycare center. I think it will depend. If your daycare looks like any other daycare except the owners happen to be Christians and they don’t want to take the kid with the gay parents, that’s quite a different thing from a place where it’s a very religions setting with religious instruction. What it comes down to is a clash of constitutional rights. The law is developing in this area and it will be interesting to see how it unfolds.”
The Employment Non-Discrim-ination Act (ENDA), which passed in the House but hasn’t been introduced in the Senate, includes exemptions for small and/or religious businesses like Christian bookstores.
But in terms of churches and their teachings, Feldblum said historically religion hasn’t been a basis for discrimination that’s held up well in court.
“It comes down to how compelling the courts feel an argument is,” she said. “In issues of race, [religious-justified teachings] haven’t been seen as very compelling. In issues of sex, that’s been slightly less the case.”
She ...
| 
