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

[Ed Brayton]

I think Brad's comparison to interracial marriage in the context of churches
being forced to perform gay marriages cuts against his argument. There are
certainly churches that do refuse to perform interracial marriages in this
country, probably a whole lot of them. Do you know of any case in which
anyone has even suggested, much less been successful in arguing, that they
be forced to do so? To say that it's "not a stretch to say that there are
those who would support saying a church can't refuse to perform marriages of
African-Americans" is a far cry from showing that there is even the most
remote chance of success if anyone actually tried to force them to do so.
There simply is no constituency with any influence that would push such an
idea, either with regard to interracial marriage or same-sex marriage. The
vast majority of people who support same-sex marriage (like me) reject the
idea of forcing churches to perform them and would strongly support the
inclusion of explicit exemptions in any law establishing such unions. It
seems to me that this is most obviously covered under the ministerial
exception and I find it almost inconceivable that any court would rule
otherwise. It has now been 42 years since Loving v Virginia and no one has
ever attempted to do what you use as evidence of the slippery slope here. I
think that tends to show just how unlikely your imagined future is.

Ed Brayton

-----Original Message-----
From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Brad Pardee
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 9:54 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Americans United: Iowa Supreme Court Ruling On
MarriageUpholdsReligious Liberty, Says Americans United

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.