Americans United: Iowa Supreme Court RulingOnMarriageUpholdsReligious Liberty, Says Americans United

[Saperstein, David (RAC)]

Alan is factually right about his perception.

The polls have consistently shown that if you phrase a question about gay marriage with a religious liberty guarantee protecting churches the pro-gay marriage cohort jumps by 14% (from 29-43% of those polled). Most come from the 33% of "support civil unions" supporters; 5% or so come from the "oppose any civil recognition" supporters.   See e.g. http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=163

-----Original Message-----
From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Brownstein, Alan
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 7:37 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Americans United: Iowa Supreme Court RulingOnMarriageUpholdsReligious Liberty, Says Americans United

As a hypothetical question, I think there is an extraordinarily slight possibility that churches or clergy will ever be required to host or officiate the marriages of same sex couples. But this issue isn't being raised as a hypothetical question. It is being argued as a basis for denying same-sex couples the right  to marry now. I suspect the reason why some members of this list used terms like "fear mongering" is because discrimination against gays and lesbians isn't speculative. It is real, ongoing, and hurtful. And is frustrating to hear people defend this discrimination on the basis of such a remote possibility in some future world that doesn't come close to existing now.

When I talk to people who are starting to prepare for the next constitutional amendment on same-sex marriage in California -- one that will be drafted by proponents of same-sex marriages -- there is a general consensus that one of the reasons Proposition 8 passed was that its supporters convinced people who didn't know any better that there was a real threat that their pastors and priests would be forced to marry same-sex couples. Virtually everyone I talk to is looking for ways to defuse this issue because they think it is false. No one wants to be married in a church that condemns their relationship by a member of the clergy who thinks their relationship is sinful and is only officiating at the ceremony under threat of legal sanction.

I am recommending that this new amendment recognizing the validity of same-sex marriages should include a provision guaranteeing that no member of the clergy or house of worship can be required to officiate over or host such a ceremony. I haven't met a single person who opposes that idea. Many think it is unnecessary because such compulsion is already prohibited by the First Amendment. But they still support the idea because it may make same-sex marriages seem less threatening to some voters -- and because no one cares about not being able to get married in a church that condemns their relationship in the first place.

Alan Brownstein
________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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.