Montpelier, USA - A little-noticed clause in the gay marriage bill recently passed in Vermont offers hope that the gay marriage trend may finally be starting to incorporate some of the concerns and needs of traditionally religious Americans as it spreads across the country.
Echoing the names of gay marriage bills in other states, the Vermont law is entitled "An Act to Protect Religious Freedom and Recognize Equality in Civil Marriage." Such titles in other states are Orwellian - those acts only purport to protect churches from having to marry same-sex couples, which is unconstitutional anyway. So far, same-sex marriage has had no regard for actual religious freedom.
Until Vermont.
The Green Mountain State's new law says in its "Public Accommodations" section that religious groups "shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if the request . . . is related to the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage." It also bars civil lawsuits against religious groups that refuse to provide goods or services to same-sex weddings.
Now, the Vermont Clause certainly could go farther. I would like to see protections for individuals - not just organizations. Still, it's a vast improvement over the other states that have implemented gay marriage without concern for its repercussions on the traditionally religious.
Without serious religious freedom guarantees, disturbing punishments have been meted out to people and groups who have acted consistent with their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman and that children are best served with both a mother and a father. The following actions have taken place in states with gay marriage, marriagelike institutions or even strong nondiscrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation:
- A year ago, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ordered a Christian photographer to pay $6,600 for declining to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony.
- When the traditionalist Christians who founded eHarmony.com realized they were losing a New Jersey lawsuit, they were basically forced to create a new Web site facilitating relationships their religion considers immoral.
- Boston's Catholic Charities in 2006 had to end its long history of facilitating adoptions because Massachusetts law would have required them to place children without any attention to whether the home had both a mother and a father or involved a same-sex couple.
- The California Supreme Court ruled last year that providers of in-vitro fertilization must perform the procedure on women in lesbian relationships even if they believe strongly that children need both mothers and fathers.
Being forced to perform a medical procedure or take photographs when you don't want to smacks of involuntary servitude. Why do organizations like "Freedom to Marry" feel that gay freedom has to be won on the backs of other people's lack of freedom to work or not work based on their beliefs?
If some states are going to have gay marriage, people like me need to be protected if we choose to continue to behave as if the definition of marriage that we think comes from God is correct, rather than that of the gay and lesbian community - and the government.
It's not a coincidence that the first real protections for religious organizations in a gay marriage state came in the first place to implement same-sex marriage by legislative action rather than judicial fiat. The legislative process usually involves compromise, and the need to get a majority often leads to amendments that incorporate each side's concerns.
The courts in Massachusetts, California, Connecticut and Iowa, however, have implemented same-sex marriage unilaterally, with dissenting voices relegated to, well, the dissents. It's much healthier for our democracy to deal with its most heated issues in the legislative arena rather than in the courts.
Ideally, we would have federal legislation guaranteeing individual conscience rights when it comes to marriage. Barring that, conservative lawmakers ought to push for strong "Vermont clauses" in all future gay marriage legislation.