For My Biology Labmate: Does Gay Marriage Threaten Religious Freedom? Some Arguments For and Against

She believes that if Prop 8 passes then churches are at risk of losing their non-profit status if they refuse to marry gay couples.

I did some research on this and present the following two articles:

1. "California Ruling Protects Religious Freedom" by the Reverend Dr. C. Welton Gaddy

While the decision frees the supportive denominations to perform same-gender marriages, it does not force any religious group to change its theology or traditions. The decision made the court’s position clear on this point:

“Finally, 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. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4.)”

This article is particularly nice because it links to the entire California supreme court decision case and so you can see that on p117 it does indeed state that no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practice.

2. "A Gay Marriage Pandora's Box" Dean R. Broyles and Lorri L. Jean

The actual evidence is overwhelming that this conflict is not imagined but very real. Unfortunately, religious freedom and free speech are increasingly on the losing end of the equation. In 2005, Swedish minister Ake Green was sentenced to jail for preaching about homosexuality from the New Testament book of Romans (the conviction was eventually overturned). New Jersey's Ocean Grove Campground, a religious nonprofit, lost its tax-exempt status in 2007 because the organization refused to rent its facility to a lesbian couple for a civil commitment ceremony. In 2006, Catholic Charities of Boston stopped doing adoption work rather than be coerced by the Massachusetts to place children with same-sex couples. A Massachusetts father was arrested in 2007 when he would not leave the school because the administration stubbornly refused to acknowledge his legal right to opt his child out of ongoing homosexual indoctrination occurring in a kindergarten class.

Unfortunately the counter argument does not actually address these points, so I will quote reader comment #34 on this (as well several others if you choose to keep reading):

34. Broyles is lying: Green's conviction was overturned; the US doesn't have a hate speech law. On Ocean Grove: the church ran it as a public business, and therefore cannot discriminate against one segment of the public. The same goes for doctors. The father was arrested for becoming belligerent and refusing to leave the principal's office. The court ruled that teaching tolerance is not indoctrination. The Catholic adoption service is continuing to do adoptions, but no publicly funded ones. The parents of the first-graders gave permission for them to attend the gay wedding. If passed, Prop * will be ruled unconstitutional.

Submitted by: William LeGro

4:31 PM PDT, October 27, 2008

30. "New Jersey's Ocean Grove Campground, a religious nonprofit, lost its tax-exempt status in 2007 because the organization refused to rent its facility to a lesbian couple for a civil commitment ceremony." HUGE crock 'o' lies. First, they DID NOT lose their tax-exempt status. They lost a $200 property tax exemption on ONE building. The building they refused to rent to a lesbian couple. And by saying "its facility," insinuates it was a chapel that was involved. Not true. The building in question was an open-air beachside pavilion. Kids skateboarded there, civil ware re-enactments were held there, as well as concerts and craft fairs.

Submitted by: mistereks

4:36 PM PDT, October 27, 2008

26. "This year, two Christian doctors here in California were successfully sued for violating state civil rights law because they asserted their right of religious conscience by refusing to perform artificial insemination for a lesbian couple." And the court ruled 7-0 that they have every right to refuse to perform any procedure they like on religious grounds. But they can't refuse that procedure to SOME people based solely on religious grounds. In other words, they can discriminate against procedures, but not against people. That's as it should be.

Submitted by: mistereks

4:37 PM PDT, October 27, 2008

23. "And famously, just this month, a first-grade class went on a "field trip" to watch its lesbian teacher's wedding in San Francisco." And parents who didn't want their children to go could refuse to sign the permission slip -- as two families did. Where is the problem here? Fight for Prop 8 all you want -- but at least do it with the truth.

Submitted by: mistereks

4:37 PM PDT, October 27, 2008

51. It does not appear Dean did his homework regarding this field trip that supposedly violated religious freedoms. Two of the students had their parents opt them out of the trip, the rest had permission from their parents, who wanted them to go. Doesn't sound like anyone was forced against their will to attend to me. And then an example of an overturned jail sentence from Sweden. Sounds like a pretty desperate cover for his homophobic attitude.

Submitted by: Chris

4:02 PM PDT, October 27, 2008

43. I love it when one side gives facts and the other side gives polemic. While Prop 8 limits marriage to one man and one woman, it is presently true, by decision of the Supreme Count that the State CANNOT limit marriage to opposite sex couple. It is therefore specious for opponents of Prop 8 to say "read the text, the Supreme Court decision mentions nothing about teaching same sex marriage to kindergarteners". Of course it doesn't. But the legal consequences in favor to compelling kindergarteners to learn the same-sex party line are as inevitable in California as they have been in Massachusetts. -- Chris Curzon

Submitted by: Chris Curzon

4:25 PM PDT, October 27, 2008

7. Everyone has the constitutional right to believe in any set of religious values they so choose. If, however, their religion commands them to break laws, or refuse services to those of other religions, or to run public business that exclude those of a certain race, it isn't seen as legal or acceptable. Those supporting Prop 8 use the right to practice their religion to treat another group who doesn't buy into their religion as second-class citizens. This is not protected by the first amendment, and denying others equal treatment under the law is not protected religious practice. Period.

Submitted by: Beargulch

5:00 PM PDT, October 27, 2008