Judge Walker of the Prop8 trial has allowed "friend of the court" (amicus) briefs to be filed by parties who want to weigh in on either side of the case. A brief from an interfaith alliance of church groups has been filed that argues the religious freedom defense of Prop8, by showing that the Roman Catholic and Mormon institutions do not speak for all faiths:
Allowing same-sex couples the right to marry threatens religious liberty of Catholics no more than does allowing civilly divorced citizens to marry in contravention of Catholic doctrine.
Allowing same-sex couples to marry no more threatens the religious liberty of those who oppose such unions in their churches and synagogues than permitting interfaith marriage threatens religious liberty of synagogues and rabbis who interpret their scripture and tradition to prohibit such unions. No one can force clergy of any denomination to solemnize any wedding that conflicts with his or her faith tradition, and no church synagogue, or other place of worship loses its tax exempt status for refusing religious rites of marriage to citizens possessing a civil right to marry.
The real threat to religious liberty comes from enforcing as law religious doctrines of society’s most powerful sects, to outlaw marriages that others both recognize and sanctify.Clergy and congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Northern and Southern California Conferences of the United Church of Christ, the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, and others, proudly solemnized the legal marriages of same-sex couples – until Proposition 8 adopted other sects’ doctrine to outlaw those marriages.
and
Proposition 8 finds no rational basis in concern for anyone’s religious liberty. The Marriage Cases opinion itself had carefully specified that
affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.
Read more at Prop8TrialTracker.
We've talked previously about efforts to codify religious freedom specifically on this issue, most recently when CA State Senator Mark Leno announced he had introduced The Civil Marriage Religious Freedom Act, SB 906.
Leno’s legislation is sponsored by the California Council of Churches, IMPACT a nd Equality California, which was the main group opposing Prop. 8.....
"We strong support religious freedom and the rights of clergy to only solemnize weddings they want to solemnize," [Geoff]Kors, [director of EQCA] says. The bill would not apply to government employees who perform weddings, who would have to treat gay and straight couples the same. It would also protect the rights of churches to reserve church facilities for their own members [as long as they don't rent them to the general public].
After all, as the amicus brief shows, there are many religious groups who want to marry LGBT people legally. And many religious groups who are moving in that direction. And, religions have already shown they can coexist with civil marriages with which they disagree, such as the Roman Catholics and divorce/remarriage.
So, whose religious beliefs get codified into law? Or do we ensure that the law protects ALL religions, equally?
It will be interesting to see how this brief contributes to the discussion.