“Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.”

— Hebrews 13:4

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …

—      United States Constitution, First Amendment

The United States of America was founded with the intention that men could not be forced by the government to believe in a particular faith or worship in a particular manner.  Indeed, the very reason the pilgrims sailed to the new lands was to find a place where their religious liberty would be protected.  This founding principle was integrated into the language of the First Amendment to the Constitution and has remained a staple of freedom.

But now, religious liberty is being encroached upon.  Decisions like the one in California (in Re Marriage Cases) infringe upon religious liberty because they mandate that priests, pastors, clerks to the court, and all other positions that perform marriage ceremonies are obligated to marry same-sex couples, even though the individual disagrees with the practice.  

The ruling in California will not only affect the religious liberty of the individual performing the marriage ceremony, it will also affect wedding photographers, wedding halls, divorce attorneys, and even doctors who are forced to decide between their job and their faith when providing in vitro treatment.

The Family Research Council (FRC) conducted a five-member panel consisting of attorneys, law professors, church leaders, and scholars to provide a broad perspective on the affect same-sex “marriage” will have on society, particularly in the area of religious liberty.

The panel consisted of a diverse spectrum of ideas and solutions, but one constant remark throughout the discussion was that confrontation between traditional marriage and same-sex “marriage” was just beginning.  Nathan Diament, a prominent member of Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, remarked that, “the free exercise clause will not protect believers in the Christian or Jewish faith from the same-sex barrage.”  

The “free exercise clause,” or the first part of the First Amendment to the Constitution, prevents the government from telling the people what religions they can and cannot worship and how they must worship them.  In the case of same-sex “marriage,” religiously affiliated groups or organizations would be forced to violate the principles of their religion in order to be politically correct.  

Benjamin Bull, Chief Counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, supported the notion that the way the legislative and judicial branches are making decisions, the free exercise clause will have no ability to protect religious liberty on the issue of same-sex “marriage.”  Bull raised several current examples such as religious organizations being forced to provide spousal benefits to same-sex couples, attorneys being threatened with losing their licenses because they refuse to handle same-sex “marriage” disputes, in order to show that the decision to accept same-sex “marriage” will have affects in all aspects of our society.

In contrast, Georgetown law professor and open lesbian Chai Feldblum feels that conservative groups are trying to instill unwarranted fear.  Feldblum repeatedly asserted that the right to legally recognize same-sex “marriages” is just as dangerous as recognition of interracial marriage during the civil rights movement, which is now heralded as a great achievement.  

Kevin J. “Seamus” Hasson, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, presented a more neutral opinion.  Hasson first mentioned that changing the definition of marriage will not just change one law but hundreds of them, so activists for the “gay” agenda need to stop minimizing the issue.  On the other hand, Hasson felt our Founding Fathers instituted the First Amendment to protect people’s right to be wrong.  It was therefore his opinion that same-sex couples should have a right to marry and then judge the consequences for themselves.   

The purpose of the panel discussion was to discuss the meaning of the California Supreme Court decision recognizing same-sex “marriage,” but the underlying issue — which is really being discussed whenever this topic is raised — is whether the historical definition of marriage should be changed, and if changed, then will that effect a change in religious liberty in our country?  

There is a consensus from a variety of sources that marriage is a legally recognized union between a “man and a woman,” and regardless of how gingerly the legislative and judicial branches fold the idea of including same-sex “marriage” into the definition a serious confrontation will erupt.  Individuals will be forced to recognize, administer, or dissolve a union their faith does not condone.  The historical perception and practice of marriage is, as an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund asserted, “on a collision course with the new tolerance of same-sex ‘marriage,’ and the only question is how massive this collision will be.”

Jonathan Trapp is an alumnus of Concerned Women for America’s Ronald Reagan Memorial Internship Program.  To learn more about an internship with CWA, please visit www.cwfa.org/internships.asp