Stern points out that we should expect the debate over same-sex marriage to have a strong religious component, but government should not further one religious view over another on gay marriage. Even so, he says, we must be careful to not minimize the ways same-sex marriage will inevitably challenge religious freedoms and practice. For instance, would religious colleges be required to provide housing to same-sex couples? Stern rightly accepts that religious views and practices should not violate civil rights, but cautions that care must also be taken to ensure that individual freedoms do not infringe or erode religious liberties.
The U.S. Supreme Court has not been asked -- nor could it possibly answer -- the question of what God or the Bible thinks about same-sex marriage. Religious groups are divided on that question, some supporting and others opposing same-sex marriage. And even if the religious viewpoint were clear, it should play no direct role in deciding whether the Constitution requires the states or the federal government to recognize same-sex marriage. Our government should not act to further one or another religious view of contested moral issues.
- - -
Same-sex couples should not be denied the right to civil marriage; that is the immediate issue in the cases now before the Supreme Court. And when that right is secured, same-sex couples should not, without very good reason, be allowed to force dissenting religious organizations to recognize or facilitate their marriages.
READ THE ENTIRE PIECE
Nailed it. Thanks for sharing the article. I found it interesting that many SCOTUS justices were asking the question as to whether or not the case rightly comes before the SCOTUS. I think this article, and likely the brief filed to the court by Stern's organization, gives a high level of plausibility that this is not a question the SCOTUS can tackle in the context of the defeat of Prop 8. At least, not at this time, as Justice Sotomayor said, "If the issue is letting the states experiment and letting the society have more time to figure out its direction, why is taking a case now the answer?”
ReplyDeleteSetting aside the pro/con arguments of same-sex civil unions, I personally find it troubling that the proponents of Prop 8 wish the SCOTUS to have this power over a state's right to determine if Prop 8 was appropriate. The district court of appeal already has decided that the CA Supreme Court upheld the CA State Constitution in striking down Prop 8.
Praying that level heads prevail once again on this issue.
Another interesting look:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhxteVaoLjY&feature=player_detailpage