Religious Freedom?

"If tolerance is the premise, it's not a one-way tolerance nor is it a tyranny of tolerance....One of the things that can occur over time is that if marriage is defined as a relationship between two of the same gender, there can be a decreasing tolerance for our beliefs....This very label of bigotry...would likely be used more frequently and with greater intensity....So one of the potential consequences growing out of this is that we may find a decreasingly tolerant environment for our beliefs as members of the church....If you have a church and it does not recognize same sex marriage, that's discriminatory and you should not be allowed to do that. It is not just wild and crazy to suggest that there could be sanctions against the teaching of our doctrine because we focus on marriage between a man and a woman....That's why I use the concept of the tyranny of tolerance."
-Elder David Bednar, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, responding to questions from young adults regarding the LDS church's involvement in Proposition Eight. From http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/media/mediaplayer.swf?media=http://broadcast.lds.org/newsroom/video/flv/bednar_edit02_150k.flv&type=FLV


Supporters of equal rights rejoiced today when the General Court of New Hampshire passed, and their Governor signed, legislation providing for same sex marriage. While I suppose this is a step forward, I'm very troubled by the cost.

New Hampshire's legislation became law only because religious conservatives succeeded in inserting language into the legislative package providing that:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization, association, or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association, or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised, or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association, or society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges to an individual if such request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage, the celebration of a marriage, or the promotion of marriage through religious counseling, programs, courses, retreats, or housing designated for married individuals, and such solemnization, celebration, or promotion of marriage is in violation of his or her religious beliefs and faith. Any refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges in accordance with this section shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state action to penalize or withhold benefits....."

Really?

Nearly identical language was included in Vermont's earlier same sex marriage legislation. Maine's same sex marriage legislation contained narrower language, but still insisted on making a proclamation of religious freedom concomitant with the bill. New York's same sex marriage bill recently passed in the Assembly included language similar to Maine's; we'll see if the Senate amends the language. In 2007, the California Assembly passed a bill to legalize same sex marriage (later vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger), which contained "religious freedom" language ever so slightly more expansive than New York's, but still much more narrow than New Hampshire's and Maine's.

I thought the matter of religious freedom was pretty settled law. The Massachusetts Supreme Court remarked in a footnote to their landmark decision that "Our decision in no way limits the rights of individuals to refuse to marry persons of the same sex for religious or any other reasons." The decision, however, never attempted to create new law to that effect, because none was needed.

California's Supreme Court (after conducting a more comprehensive and legally sound analysis than Massachusetts) similarly noted in their opinion regarding same sex marriage that "affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."

As if enough hadn't been said on the matter, Connecticut's Supreme Court also took pains in their ruling to confirm that "religious autonomy is not threatened by recognizing the right of same sex couples to marry civilly. Religious freedom will not be jeopardized by the marriage of same sex couples because religious organizations that oppose same sex marriage as irreconcilable with their beliefs will not be required to perform same sex marriages or otherwise to condone same sex marriage or relations."

The Iowa Supreme Court, in making headlines earlier this year, simply noted, thankfully!, in their opinion that "A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman."

I suppose that somehow we've arrived at the point in American society where paranoia over all things legal has become entrenched. Why else would we demand at every turn to be assured, in the most explicit and tedious of terms, that equal protection in civil marital laws does not eviscerate the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom? Back when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that equal protection trumped racially biased prohibitions against interracial marriage (ostensibly rooted, I might add, in conservative religious interpretations of certain biblical passages), the justices felt no need to assure religious conservatives that they would be robbed of their rights to practice their religion in whatever racially bigoted way they pleased. Similarly, passage of the federal Civil Rights Acts did not require soporific language reiterating the religious freedoms of religious societies, their agents, affiliated non-profits, etc. to practice bigotry in the practice of their religion, even though lots of Southerners refused accommodations and services to interracial couples in part on the basis of religious feeling.

Back in the day, the Ezra Taft Bensons of the conservative religious world squawked and people ignored their ridiculous rantings against the evils of tolerance and tyranny and the unintended consequences of the civil rights movement. No more.

Our courts and our legislatures, in addition to mainstream media, legitimize tortured legal analysis by ill-informed (and frequently disingenuous) commentators and religious fanatics by taking pains to point out the non-impact on religious freedom resulting from recognition of same sex marriage. Are we reduced as a society to the point where we have to note every time liberties to one group are granted that the bigots are still free, too?

I mean, I don't recall Orrin Hatch reaching out to atheists to assure them that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act wouldn't impact on their rights to be free from religious dogma. Nothing in that little piece of nonsense legislation pointed out that atheists "shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges to an individual if such request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges...is in violation of his or her religious beliefs and faith" (or lack thereof).

In a pluralistic society, where race, gender, sexual orientation, AND religion are generally considered "suspect classifications" under law (except in places like my home state...), we accept that privately held and practiced bigotry is not compromised by prohibitions against discrimination by government or even prohibitions against bigotry in commerce.

But I think David Bednar and his ilk actually understand that. What I think terrifies them is not the threat of a court order mandating that the Mormon church solemnize gay marriage in their temples, but rather the simple threat of social approbation. Little David Bednar doesn't want to be a called a bigot. Of course, that's what he is, but it scares the bejeezus out of him to think that at some point he and his brethren in the church would be called out on it. Mormons in particular, and Christians generally, I suppose, have persecution complexes built into their fragile psyches very early on in their religious upbringing, so I guess it's not especially surprising that they would latch onto irrational fears of tyrannical gay folks forcing sanctions on them because of their religious beliefs.

In the case of the Mormon church, I guess the fears are somewhat born out by their experience in the wake of the Civil Rights Act. While no court ever ordered Joseph Fielding Smith to solemnize an interracial marriage, by the time Spencer Kimball took over, it was clear that society would no longer accept the LDS church as mainstream unless they abandoned their racially discriminatory policies in regard to the priesthood. So the church changed.

And, to no one's surprise (except Ezra 'Daft' Benson et al.), the Mormons have actually become a larger, better church because society forced them to be a little more tolerant. Will the Mormons at some future date install a gay man into the upper echelons of their patriarchal hierarchy (a la their recent elevation of black African Joseph Sitati)? Not until after the Mormons start ordaining women to the priesthood.

And the forces of a decreasingly tolerant, tyrannical society will first have to overcome LDS misogyny before they can start on dismantling the church's homophobia. And that will take a long, long time.