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

[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.