The protected sphere for religion should involve that which is actually religious. Thus, churches should not be compelled to dispense sacraments to those of whom they disapprove. But when churches step outside that sphere in order to play (as Roger puts it) a "robust role in public life," as they have a right to do, aren't they necessarily expected to honor the public laws? Roger seems to be arguing for special privileges -- freedom not only to dispense sacraments in the religious sphere, but also freedom to serve as arbiter of whose marriages may be solemnized in the public sphere. But the freedom to practice religion cannot mean that, when it enters the public square, a religious institution gets to remain a law unto itself. For purposes of civil marriage, solemnization is not an inherently religious activity. Thus, why should a church be allowed to pick and choose which marriages it will solemnize in the state's name? Isn't the power to perform solemnizations a privilege, not a right? Imagine we're in a state that doesn't allow same-sex marriage, but a house of worship insists that it be allowed to create such marriages (and have them fully recognized by the state) because failure to do so would violate its freedom of conscience? How is that different from letting churches turn away those whom the law deems entitled to solemnization? In both cases, religious freedom is being used to demand a special niche where civil rules are bent in order to conform to religious doctrines. Steve Sanders
_____ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Roger Severino Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 9:28 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: Impact of same-sex marriage rulings on strict scrutinyinreligious exemption cases Art, I am curious to know why you think same-sex marriage states will not (ever?) impose new regulations on the power of clergy to solemnize civil marriages. As for the religious liberty interests at stake, it is again, not a question of direct coercion, but of whether religious institutions that remain true to their religious identity will be allowed to retain a robust role in public life when that identity conflicts with the priorities or preferences of the state. Religious solemnization of civil marriage is just one manifestation of this issue--partnerships with religious institutions and government in the provision of social services (like adoption or marriage counseling) is another, and the list goes on. Another concern I had in mind was the fact that if the state does move to strip clergy of their solemnization power, it may do so selectively. That is, only certain houses of worship would literally get the state seal of approval to solemnize marriages while others would not and the state's choice of winners and losers will turn precisely on each religious institutions' theology of marriage. -Roger Severino (Disclaimer: all opinions expressed are mine alone) In a message dated 4/7/09 11:11:32 PM, rseveri...@hotmail.com writes: what is to stop Iowa from stripping dissenting religious institutions, and only such institutions, of the power to solemnize *civil* marriages? That seems unlikely to me, but what if it does -- how does that deprive a religious institution of its *religious* liberty? <http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_042009> _____ Rediscover HotmailR: Get e-mail storage that grows with you. Check it out. <http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_St orage1_042009>
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
