about religion and the Supreme Court decision

[cellio]

I'd like to thank dglenn for bringing this to my attention:

"[...] as an Orthodox rabbi who does not officiate at same-sex marriages [...] My 'side' did not lose, because my side is never defined by any one position on a matter of ritual or liturgy, no matter how important that matter may be. My side, I hope, is God's side, and the God in whom I believe is infinite -- bigger and more complex than can be reduced to any single decision, or even any single tradition, for that matter." -- Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, I am an orthodox rabbi who doesn't perform gay marriages, but I celebrate today's Supreme Court decision, 2015-06-26.

I am heterosexual and religious. The Supreme Court decision to recognize a secular, legal status does not in any way harm my religious rights, nor anybody else's. Why should my gay friends be barred from the legal and financial protections, and obligations, that I and my husband have? (I do wish they'd declared "civil unions for everyone" and taken the term "marriage" completely out of the law, but I presume they can't do that on their own.)

No clergy with objections to gay marriage need officiate. That's proper; most rabbis won't perform marriages between Jews and non-Jews, Catholic priests won't remarry those who are divorced, and I presume there are other examples. The courts continue to uphold your religious rights.

Except for that one some claim of imposing their religious mores on others. That one took a little damage Friday.

Comments

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

Except for that one some claim of imposing their religious mores on others. That one took a little damage Friday.

As well it should. Well and truly said.

[harvey-rrit.livejournal.com]

Well, don't my heart just bleed green boogers over that one.

[hudebnik.livejournal.com]

I've been trying to imagine scenarios coming out of this decision that somebody could legitimately claim poses a restriction on their religious liberty. And they boil down to "We've been restricting gay access to X indirectly by saying you have to be legally married, and of course gays can't be legally married; now we have to restrict gay access to X explicitly, which will make us look bad and create a rift in our church." X could be
* church weddings
* visitation rights at religiously-run hospitals
* adoption through religiously-affiliated agencies
* admission of your children to religiously-run schools
* partner benefits for employees of a religious institution
* more examples cheerfully welcomed

These are all things on the vast, fuzzy border between religion and civil society: benefits often offered by religious institutions, but with legal ramifications. Some of them (like church weddings) will probably stay on the religious side of the fence, creating a rift in the congregation; others (like partner benefits) will probably be decided by the courts to be civil matters where excluding same-sex spouses is inadmissible. How will the religious institutions react to that?

For now, in many states they can simply fire or refuse to hire people they think might be same-sex-attracted. But how long before there are anti-discrimination laws against that, as the presence of more and more open same-sex couples pushes public opinion in favor of tolerance?

Oh, another intriguing example: what of unisex religious communities (monasteries and the like)? In the past, they've been able to exclude married people and (acknowledged) intra-community sex because they're unisex, and of course married people (or people having sex) can't be the same sex; now they have to face the possibility of two monks or nuns being legally married and legally, openly having sex. How does this affect community dynamics?

[cellio]

That's an interesting point in your last paragraph. Even without gay marriage, they've certainly been aware of homosexuality for quite some time -- how has that affected monasteries and nunneries? You don't need a legal status change to have to contend with the behavior, after all.

These are all things on the vast, fuzzy border between religion and civil society: benefits often offered by religious institutions, but with legal ramifications.

Yup. I, like you, expect that certain ones will stay the domain of religion, and I think the degree of exclusivity will play a role. Already religious institutions can say "we will not marry you" -- because one of you is the wrong religion, for example. That is their right. And since people can go elsewhere to get married, that's fine. If the state ever stopped offering a "go to a state authority and do the paperwork" option that would be a problem, but religious institutions are not the only path to marriage.

Schools are also likely to stay on the religious side of the line if they don't collect state money. Already, privately-funded schools are at considerable liberty, as I understand it, in whom they admit and what they teach. This is a fuzzier case because the state imposes some educational requirements on all schools. But, again, there's a public alternative so that'll probably stay as-is.

Employment is more contentious. The state already imposes requirements on all employers, public and private. We have anti-discrimination laws that apply to employment. Religious employers have been able to get exemptions if they can demonstrate relevance; e.g. a Catholic school will only hire Catholic teachers, because they see being a role model as an important part of the teacher job. They could probably get away with barring homosexuals from teaching roles for the same reason. But can they impose the same restrictions on, say, their bookkeeper or their IT person or their custodian? I don't know what current practice and precedents are here.

Sometimes they'll fight an issue, like the Catholic church did over the health-plan requirement and contraceptives. I expect we'll see a lot of individual situations in the courts in the coming months and years.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

They changed the definition of "marriage". Big deal -- they didn't change the meaning of nissuim, ishut, or ketubah, so what do I care what they did with an English word? Other then let my friends use it, too?

I mean, I DO care that they changed the meaning of "marriage" to include my friends, but "marriage" isn't a word that has to do with religion in the first place.

[cellio]

Well, the Christians do use that word in a religious context, and I think that's a big part of the problem. The institution that the state claims an interest in, that requires a license from the state and has legal treatment, shouldn't, in retrospect, have been called "marriage" in the first place -- the church was already using the word in a more-restricted sense and what you get a license for isn't that. But they couldn't have known back then that this word would be so problematic.

So Christians do have a thing called "marriage" that is not the same thing as the secular legal "marriage", same as our kiddushin is religious and not the same as the secular thing. As far as I know getting the religious status also confers the secular status, but the reverse isn't true -- that's why a Justice of the Peace can effect a marriage without involving any religious institution. It's a secular marriage but not a religious marriage or kiddushin.

In the space of "defense of marriage" (sic), churches should be no more concerned with secular gay marriages than they are with secular atheist heterosexual marriages. Religiously speaking they don't recognize either. So what? That shouldn't be new. If they weren't threatened by one class of not-church-recognized marriage, they shouldn't be threatened by another.

Of course, if their goal is something else, like to force their views of what is or isn't proper behavior on a secular nation, then that wouldn't mollify them at all...

[goljerp]

As far as I know getting the religious status also confers the secular status

I think this varies from state to state, and possibly even within states. When Joy and I asked our friend the Rabbi to marry us, she said yes, but noted that she had already filled out the forms with the City of NY. I seem to recall that part of it was that she had to actually be employed as a religious leader at an institution where performing marriages was a normal part of her duties. I imagine other cities and states have different rules...