Americans United: Iowa Supreme Court Ruling On MarriageUpholdsReligious Liberty, Says Americans United

[David Cruz]

If Steve thinks that Brad's asserted fear is preposterous, then I don't
think that "fearmongering" would be an improper way for him to characterize
it, as one need not have dishonesty (though one might perhaps infer that
depending on how outlandish another's claim seemed) for someone to be
'involved with something in a petty or contemptible way.'

There is a big gap in my mind between the existence of "those who would
support" X and a genuine threat of X.  That *someone* might say, churches
can think what they want but they must perform religious ceremonies in
compliance with secularly imposed qualifications, does not make it likely or
even particularly plausible that given U.S. history, culture, and
constitutional law this would ever come to pass.

As for where this falls on the preposterous-plausible-likely continuum, I'm
still waiting for someone to unearth all the U.S. cases where secular
authorities (or private parties with a good claim to legal mandate), backed
up by courts, have attempted to force churches, mosques, temples, etc. to
perform a religious ceremony for someone for whom the organization refused
on religious grounds.  Brad may be more worried about the robustness of our
protection for church autonomy than am I, yet I haven't seen evidence that
would warrant such worries.

David B. Cruz
Professor of Law
University of Southern California Gould School of Law
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071
U.S.A.


On 4/3/09 6:53 PM, "Brad Pardee" <bp51414 at alltel.net> wrote:

> You're talking about different religions, though, Steve.  The standard model
> that we see in the debate over gay rights is to compare it to the civil
> rights movement in the 60s.  People who don't support gay marriage are
> characterized as being no different than people who didn't support
> interracial marriage.  Do you think it is a stretch to say that there are
> those who would support saying a church can't refuse to perform marriages of
> African-Americans?  Using the way the debate is waged as a measuring stick,
> it seems safe to say that it's only a matter of time before there will be
> those who also support saying a church can't refuse to perform commitment
> ceremonies of homosexuals.
> 
> And "fear-mongering"?  I can accept that we disagree on the possibility of
> this line of argument coming to fruition.  I fully believe that your views
> are based on an honest assessment of what you believe to be true.  But I
> don't think I've EVER heard the term fear-mongering used where it wasn't
> inferring some manner of dishonest manipulation, propagandizing, and
> pandering.  Is that a fair assumption to make about what I wrote?  I might
> be wrong.  I hope I'm wrong.  But I'm honestly speaking what I believe to be
> true.  Disagree with me if you believe I'm wrong.  I wouldn't want you to
> pretend to agree if you don't.  But it's not fear-mongering just because we
> disagree on whether there is something to legitimately be afraid of.
> 
> Brad
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steven Jamar" <stevenjamar at gmail.com>
> To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 8:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Americans United: Iowa Supreme Court Ruling On
> MarriageUpholdsReligious Liberty, Says Americans United
> 
>> It is quite a stretch to say someone must not discriminate in renting
>> property or providing secular services to say that religious
>> organizations and their officiants must perform an action like  marrying
>> two other people contrary to their beliefs.  We don't force  priests to
>> marry a catholic to a jew or an orthodox rabbi to perform  the ceremony
>> between an athiest and a orthodox jew, even when the  people are of
>> different sexes.
>> 
>> Brad is overstating the danger in the typical fear-mongering of those
>> opposing gay marriage.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> 
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
> Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
> read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> messages to others.