In Same-Sex Marriage Testimony, O'Malley Balances Religious Freedom, Civil Rights
ANNAPOLIS (January 31, 2012) -- In testimony before a Senate committee Tuesday, Gov. Martin O'Malley stressed the importance of balancing the freedom of Maryland's religious institutions to practice their faith with the civil rights of same-sex couples in the state.
"As a free and diverse people of many faiths, we choose to be governed under the law by certain fundamental principles or beliefs, among them the belief we share in the dignity of every individual, a belief we share in equal protection of the law for every individual, and the belief in the free exercise of religion without government interference," he said to a committee room packed with supporters and opponents of the bill, one of the most controversial this session.
O'Malley hopes the Civil Marriage Protection Act, introduced last week, will pass both chambers of the General Assembly this spring. An earlier version stalled last year after it failed to pick up the 71 votes necessary to pass in the House.
O'Malley's testimony before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee drew on themes of equality, freedom and dignity for all Marylanders. It also included assurances that the state would not impinge on the rights of religious institutions that see marriage as strictly between a man and a woman.
more: http://somd.com/news/headlines/2012/14967.shtml
= new reply since forum marked as read
has to be licensed by the state.
Clergy are licensed (or commissioned, whatever the jurisdiction calls it) to perform marriages.
Ordinarily, people who are licensed by a state to perform a state function are not permitted to discriminate in the performance of that function.
Now, the relevance of that would depend on whether there are protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the local legislation.
In Canada and all Canadian provinces, there are. It is not legal for the state to discriminate on that basis (under the constitutional Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which applies to the federal and provincial governments) and it is not legal for private sector actors to discriminate on that basis in the provision of goods and services (and the Charter requires that the federal and provincial human rights codes prohibit such private sector dicrimination).
The federal legislation that settled the issue in Canada - which wasn't necessary, because the courts had been doing the job of compelling the provinces to issue licences, under the Charter - gave assurances of religious freedom blah blah. (Marriage itself here, i.e. qualifications for marriage, is under federal jurisdiction; the formalities are under provincial jurisdiction.)
Once it was held that the provinces must issue marriage licences to same-sex couples, the provinces examined the issue of people commissioned to perform marriages refusing to perform same-sex marriages.
Non-clergy commissioners have been instructed that if they will not perform their duties in compliance with the relevant legislation, they must surrender their commissions.
http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/legal/bc_case/marriage_commissioners.htm
BC marriage commissioners must perform
Bigotry will not be tolerated in the workplace
"Obviously the province is realizing that the court has spoken very clearly about same-sex marriages and that individuals who are commissioners can now no more turn down a same-sex marriage than they could if they didn't like the person's colour ... This is a very different issue than telling a church they would have to conduct a same-sex marriage. It's a particular individual with a secular job. You either do it or you look for different work."
Vancouver city councillor and United Church minister Tim Stevenson, The Province, Jan. 21, 2004.
British Columbia's Vital Statistics Agency (part of the Ministry of Health Planning) issued a letter yesterday to all of its marriage commissioners, advising them of the agency's expectation that all commissioners will comply with the Canadian Charter and the new common law definition of marriage. British Columbia, following Ontario's lead, introduced same-sex marriage in that province on July 8, 2003.
Any commissioners "who feel that they cannot solemnize same-sex marriages" are expected to give notice of their intention to resign by Feb. 27, with a deadline of leaving their job by March 31.
The move by the agency further underscores the separation of faith-based beliefs from government policy. Bigotry, whether founded in religion or simple ignorance has no place in our government's policies or in the provision of public services. Gay and lesbian couples can rest assured that they will not encounter homophobia when they make plans for the civil solemnization of their marriage in B.C..
The province of Ontario does not employ marriage commissioners, however many city halls offer marriage services at their locations, without prejudice. Couples in Ontario who seek a civil marriage can also approach a justice of the court, or use other individuals who are often listed at city hall licensing bureaus.
All this to ask:
If clergy are performing a state function which they are licensed by the state to perform, why should they not have to comply with general anti-discrimination legislation in doing so?
Clergy have never been required to perform marriages they don't feel like performing, e.g. marriages of people outside their denomination, marriages of divorced individuals, etc.
Why not? Why, as agents of the state, should they be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, marital status, or anything else, when the parties to the marriage meet the state's criteria for eligibility to marry?
Simple solution:
All marriages are solemnized by agents of the state acting without discrimination.
People who want their marriages recognized by their religious group have a separate ritual performed for that purpose.
The logic is absolutely unassailable.
That's why the other side never bothers with logic.
