Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, speaks at the March for Marriage near the Capitol in Washington, D.C., last June. CNS photo
Posted on 04/09/2015 2:32:15 PM PDT by NYer
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, speaks at the March for Marriage near the Capitol in Washington, D.C., last June. CNS photo
Same-sex marriage currently is legal in 36 states — or 37, depending on the outcome of a dispute between state and federal courts in Alabama. But in only 11 of those states was it legalized by referendums or legislation. In the others, it was imposed by courts.
It is generally expected, though not certain, that the Supreme Court soon will follow this pattern and impose same-sex marriage nationwide. The court on April 28 will devote two and a half hours to oral arguments in four cases raising the issue and will hand down its decision in early summer.
If and when the court rules in favor of same-sex marriage, the battle will move to a new stage.
The emphasis then will be on state and possibly federal legislative efforts to provide specific legal protection, over and above the Constitution’s guarantee of religious liberty, to institutions and individuals with conscientious objections to cooperating with marriages between persons of the same sex.
Proposed new laws for this purpose are pending now in at least nine states, and the number seems likely to rise if the Supreme Court gives its blessing to same-sex marriage.
But the recent controversy over a religious freedom law in Indiana (see Page 8) suggests that crafting such measures is not necessarily simple.
There already have been cases in which providers of wedding-related services like florists and bakers have faced potentially crippling fines for violating anti-discrimination laws by refusing on conscience grounds to provide flowers or wedding cakes for same-sex couples.
A poll commissioned by the Family Research Council and a coalition of pro-family groups found that 81 percent of Americans think government should let people “follow their beliefs about marriage” in work and business settings. The poll also found that 61 percent support allowing states to uphold traditional marriage and 53 percent agree that marriage should be defined only as the union of a man and a woman.
| March for Marriage |
|---|
|
Just days before the Supreme Court is to hear oral arguments in the four cases involving same-sex marriage, thousands will gather in Washington in support of traditional marriage during the third annual March for Marriage on April 25.
On the website promoting the march organizers state, “For months, activist federal judges across the country have issued illegitimate rulings redefining marriage against the will of 50 million state voters and legislators who voted to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Please join us on April 25 for this critical March for Marriage to tell the U.S. Supreme Court to reaffirm the legitimacy of state marriage laws.”
For a detailed schedule of march events and other information, visit marriagemarch.org.
|
The Catholic Church, which does not recognize same-sex unions as marriages, has an obvious stake in the effort to strengthen legal protections. Besides its concern for the rights of conscience in general, the Church faces the prospect that specifically Church-related institutions or individuals will come under legal pressure to cooperate with legalized same-sex marriage or else go out of business.
Examples of what might lie ahead include lawsuits in which a Catholic high school teacher marries his same-sex partner and the principal declines to renew his contract; a Knights of Columbus council that rents out its hall for nonchurch social events refuses to rent to a same-sex wedding reception; a dissident priest performs a same-sex ceremony and the bishop suspends him.
In the minds of some observers, court-ordered legalization of same-sex marriage also raises the question of whether the Church should continue to serve as the agent of the state in registering marriages.
Besides the risk of increasing the Church’s vulnerability to legal pressure, the practice also implies that the Church and the state mean the same thing by “marriage.” But this is demonstrably not so once the state accepts same-sex unions as marriages. People who favor ending this particular church-state relationship say it adds to the confusion at a time when many Catholics already are confused about the meaning of marriage.
The present legal situation is the offshoot of a 2013 Supreme Court decision in a case called U.S. v. Windsor which overturned the key provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act denying benefits of federal programs to same-sex couples.
At the time, the court said its action in Windsor shouldn’t be understood as calling into question the legitimacy of state bans on same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, a string of lower court decisions since then has taken the DOMA ruling as precedent for doing exactly that. Last October, the Supreme Court itself appeared to encourage that interpretation by refusing to accept several of these cases for review and thereby allowing the lower court decisions in favor of same-sex marriage to stand.
In November, however, a divided three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that this issue should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. The ruling applied to same-sex marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.
The Supreme Court agreed in January to consider four cases from these states. The Ohio case was listed first on the court’s order, and its name, Obergefell v. Hodges, is used collectively to cover all of them.
In accepting the cases, the court instructed the lawyers who would argue them to address two specific questions: first, whether state bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional or the Constitution instead guarantees same-sex couples a right to marry; second, whether a state can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that took place in another state in which they are legal.
As expected, a large number of amicus curiae briefs have been submitted on both sides of the dispute, including one by the Obama administration arguing the case for same-sex marriage. During the 2008 presidential campaign, President Barack Obama said he opposed legal recognition, but since then he has become an advocate of legalization.
When the Supreme Court accepted the Obergefell case and its companions in January, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement by Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco urging prayers that the court would uphold the right of states to “respect the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”
Archbishop Cordileone, chairman of the bishops’ subcommittee for promotion and defense of marriage, called it “hard to imagine” how the traditional recognition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman could be declared illegal. Marriage understood this way is “a unique and beautiful reality which a society respects to its benefit or ignores to its peril,” he said.
In March, Archbishop Cordileone and two other USCCB chairmen wrote Congress endorsing pending legislation that would ensure the right of child welfare agencies acting for religious or moral reasons to place children for adoption or foster care only with married heterosexual couples. Such agencies have been excluded from making placements in Massachusetts, Illinois, California and the District of Columbia.
“Our first and most cherished freedom, religious liberty, is to be enjoyed by all Americans, including child welfare providers who serve the needs of children,” said Archbishop Thomas G. Wenski of Miami, chairman of the bishops’ domestic justice and human development committee, and Archbishop William E. Lori, chairman of the religious liberty committee.
The three archbishops supported the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2015. Their letter was addressed to the bill’s congressional sponsors, Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pennsylvania) and Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming).
Ping!
prepare for disobedience
I want to see rioting
Prediction: 5-4 in favor of fag marriage. Kennedy casts the swing vote.
6-3 is my bet. Stupid Roberts is a screw-up turncoat.
If they are trying to force NON-501-3c Business to cater gay weddings against their will, they will certainly try to force churches who get a 501-3c handout from the fed gov in terms of tax breaks to do what they tell them to do.
States: get ready to reject and nullify this unconstitutional federal act.
Churches and individuals should do the same, but will need the help of their state to support them.
Federal acts outside the limits of the Constitution are valid and are acts of tyranny. It’s time to stand up to them on constitutional grounds.
Yeah, I'm half expecting that Kennedy swings the other way.
Marches only matter if they are covered by the MSM.
states won’t be allowed to reject it, courts will always rule against them now.
No need to riot yet. States simply need to get ready to reject and nullify this unconstitutional federal act. Churches and individuals should do the same, but will need the help of their state to support them.
Federal acts outside the limits of the Constitution are valid and are acts of tyranny. It’s time to stand up to them on constitutional grounds.
If the Church caves (and I don’t think it will), I’ll have to return to the Russian Orthodox as my mother did in the 70s. She dragged us many miles for that.
churches should be unregistered
how many states have defied court rulings on this subject so far??
With all these small mom and pop bakeries and wedding shops getting attacked by this nonsense, I have a legitimate question. Maybe there is an attorney on the board that wants to comment on this idea.
Let’s say I own a bakery. In a very prominent position where it can be seen by all, I locate a sign that says the following:
“We are a Christian establishment, believing in the principal that marriage can ONLY exist between a man and a woman. However since the government has chosen to twist this definition into an unimaginable paradox, we are forced to perform services for what are called homosexual marriages. We will comply fully with this requirement. In the interest of full disclosure, we will also tell you that 100% of the profit derived from services provided to homosexual couples will be donated to one of the following organizations:
National Organization for Marriage
Americans for Truth about Homosexuality
Traditional Values Coalition
Family Watch International
Your dollars will do a lot of good in helping to stop this abomination. Have a Blessed day!”
I don’t see that any ‘laws’ have been broken since I am fully agreeing to serve them. I have not refused anything and what I do with the profits of my business is my call. And as far as the religious beliefs go, nothing I can do can stop them from being ‘married’ since that is controlled by the civil authorities. I am helping sinners contribute to organizations that can help prevent their sinning in the future. That would seem to be a worthwhile Christian endeavor.
My guess is the vast majority of homosexual couples would read the sign and walk out – which is also a worthwhile outcome!
The states constitutionally don't need the feds permission to reject their illegal and unconstitutional acts whether the act is by federal court or not.
It’s a tax! /Roberts
The states haven’t been pushed they way they have during the Obama regime.
Arizona has just passed a law allowing the state to reject unconstitutional federal law.
It will happen when enough people of a state decide ENOUGH already.
churches should be unregistered
I agree, if I were running a church i would either openly defy the 5013c crap by talking about anything I wanted to at the pulpit, OR... Dropping the non-profit bit completely!
Ideally i would flaunt the fact the church was NOT under any gruebermint control.
In other words, they will ceaselessly take the line of least resistance.
It's up to us to resist, and to instantly, vocally,and substantively support those who are resisting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.