Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
This November, Minnesota will vote on an amendment to ban same-sex marriage in the state constitution.
Reverend Mark Kuether of the Congregational United Church of Christ recently wrote an
opinion piece for the Detroit Lakes Tribune, arguing that religious freedom requires legal
recognition of gay marriage. Kuether says: "This amendment would tell clergy who they
can and cannot marry in their congregations. Some churches and religious organizations
want to recognize the relationships of committed gay and lesbian couples. Some don't. It should
be their choice. However, this amendment does the opposite. It tells religious leaders they
are not allowed to marry same-sex couples. Many faiths want to decide for themselves.
This amendment represents a one-size fits all government mandate on our state’s churches."
It's easy to see why this argument is appealing: it takes the usual religious objections to
legal gay marriage, and turns them on their head. Instead of claiming that legalizing
same-sex marriage would curtail religious freedom, it argues that a ban on same-sex
marriage is the real infringement on religious freedom. And it also points out that "religion"
is not a monolithic body that's uniformly opposed to gay marriage, as many religious
opponents of gay marriage often like to pretend. But the religious freedom argument for marriage
equality is just as flawed as the religious freedom argument against marriage equality,
and for precisely the same reasons. Those who argue against gay marriage on the grounds
of religious freedom make the mistake of conflating civil marriage law with religious marital
practices. Out of willful or genuine ignorance, they claim that the legalization of same-sex
marriage would mean all churches and other religious institutions are now required to
perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. This is simply contrary to fact, which is plain
to see in every state where same-sex marriage is legal and intolerant religions are still
free to conduct only the weddings they want. Just as with opposite-sex marriage, same-sex
marriages under civil law are the kind you get at the city hall or another government
office. Its legal aspects are a purely secular matter, and that legal recognition does not
oblige any religion to celebrate these marriages. The recognition of opposite-sex marriages
in civil law has never meant that a Catholic church is required to let just anyone get
married in a cathedral, and same-sex marriage is no different. The people who make this
argument don't seem to understand that you can't just go to any church, synagogue, mosque
or temple, and demand to get married there. In other countries with official state churches
whose doctrines are decided by legislators, those churches may be required to solemnize
same-sex marriages, but in the United States, the government is entirely unable to tell
a religion which marriages and relationships it can and cannot celebrate. For that reason,
the claim that a ban on gay marriage "tells religious leaders they are not allowed to
marry same-sex couples" is likewise false. Various religious bodies, including the United
Church of Christ, already choose to recognize same-sex marriages and perform same-sex wedding
ceremonies as part of their faith. And if they only wanted gay, ***, and otherwise
extraordinary couples to get married at their churches, they would be fully within their
rights, too. Because civil marriage and religious marriage are completely separate practices,
a civil ban on same-sex marriage does not prevent them from doing this. Conversely,
a certain religion's marital practices are not and should not be used to define the civil
marriage laws which apply to everyone. The Catholic church may choose to recognize as
valid only those marriages which abide by their specific religious requirements, but
that doesn't mean these are the only marriages that are recognized under civil law. No religion
gets to dictate our nation's civil, secular laws, and they can't demand that everyone
be forced to live under a particular religious doctrine that they may not even believe in.
Even if no religion in history approved of same-sex marriages or wanted to perform them,
this would be no argument against recognizing same-sex marriages under civil law. And just
as we wouldn't let an anti-gay church define what marriage is for everyone, we also shouldn't
let a pro-gay church define what marriage is for everyone. Respect for religious freedom
does not demand that our civil law must ban all the marriages a religion bans, and allow
all the marriages a religion allows. The scope of religious freedom does not extend that
far. There are certain faiths that approve of many different kinds of marriages which
are not recognized under civil law. Does this mean the state is required to recognize child
marriages or multiple marriages just because someone's religion does? No, just as a racist
church that disapproves of interracial marriage cannot impose this rule upon the populace
at large. But all of these groups already have the freedom to practice their religious
marriages in accordance with their beliefs. And just as the legalization of same-sex marriage
does not burden that freedom, neither does banning same-sex marriage. The claim that
legal gay marriage limits religious freedom is a complete non-starter. But so is the idea
that its absence poses a similar restriction. There are already plenty of excellent points
in favor of same-sex marriage, and no good ones against it so far. We don't need to rely
on arguments that proceed from the same faulty premises, so why pretend religious freedom
has anything to do with it?