The Unintended Consequences of 'Same Sex Marriage'

By Ronald J. Rychlak
5/2/2008
Inside Catholic (www.insidecatholic.com)

Regardless of what it is called, legal sanctioning of homosexual relationships creates a host of unintended consequences and constitutes a serious threat to religious liberty.

In an atmosphere which is becoming increasingly charged and filled with accusations and allegations, little consideration is being given to the legal implications of so called 'same sex' marriage and marriage equivalency laws as they affect the constitutional right to religious freedom.

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

WASHINGTON, DC (Inside Catholic) - America's position on homosexual activity has radically changed over the past few decades.

Fifty years ago, every state criminalized homosexual acts under "sodomy laws." As recently as 1986, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of such laws.

In 2003 there were still 13 states that criminalized homosexual acts (though the laws were rarely enforced). That year, however, the Supreme Court ruled these laws unconstitutional. Today, laws are used to protect rather than prohibit homosexual activities.

The supreme courts in California and Connecticut are about to decide whether same-sex couples have a right to marry in those states. Massachusetts already granted homosexuals that right.

Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New Hampshire all have civil unions, which are similar to marriage, but activists in those states are already pointing to deficiencies and pushing for full recognition of gay marriage.

Regardless of what it is called, legal sanctioning of homosexual relationships creates a host of unintended consequences and constitutes a serious threat to religious liberty.

Consider what happened in Massachusetts in 2004: Justices of the peace who refused to preside over same-sex unions due to moral or religious objections were summarily fired. Since same-sex unions were entitled to be treated the same as traditional marriages, this refusal was discrimination and a firing offense.

What about a priest or minister who similarly refuses to preside at such ceremonies? Obviously the state can't fire such people, but it is easy to foresee other sanctions -- such as loss of tax benefits -- being imposed on churches.

After all, if gay marriage truly is no different from traditional marriage, by what justification can the government give preferential treatment to an entity that discriminates?

Just last year, two women filed a complaint in New Jersey because they were denied use of a pavilion for their civil union ceremony. The pavilion was owned by a Methodist ministry. It had been rented out for marriages, but the ministry refused to rent it for civil unions because it is a religious structure, and civil unions are not recognized in the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline.

Due to the ministry's refusal to rent it for the lesbian ceremony, New Jersey revoked its tax-free status.

The Des Moines Human Rights Commission found the local Young Men's Christian Association in violation of public accommodation laws because it refused to extend "family membership" privileges to a lesbian couple that had entered a civil union in Vermont.

Accordingly, the city forced the YMCA to recognize gay and lesbian unions as "families" for membership purposes, or lose over $100,000 in government support.

Perhaps the most notorious example of a state forcing its view on a church agency comes from Massachusetts, where Boston Catholic Charities ran an adoption agency that had been placing children with families for over 100 years.

In 2006, Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley announced that the agency would abandon its founding mission rather than submit to a state law requiring it to place children with homosexual couples. (A Vatican document from 2003 described gay adoptions as ''gravely immoral.")

The legal analysis in these cases is really pretty simple:

If homosexual marriages or civil unions are the equivalent of traditional marriages, you can't discriminate. If you do, at the very least you put your government benefits at risk.

This is the same rationale that was used by the Supreme Court in 1983 to uphold stripping Bob Jones University of its tax-exempt status due to its racial policies.

A potentially greater threat is that government agencies will try to change church teachings. It is already happening in other nations.

The Catholic Church, for instance, teaches that homosexual inclination is a "tendency toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary, Canada, was investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for doing little more than writing about this teaching in a newspaper column. �ke Green, pastor of a Pentecostalist church in Sweden, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to a month in prison for a sermon that insulted homosexuals.

It may seem that legal recognition of civil unions or gay marriages is a trivial matter and one that respects the basic dignity of gay people. The unintended legal consequences that flow from such recognition, however, present a serious threat to religious liberty.

Courts and legislatures need to consider these consequences before committing the nation to a policy with so many potential pitfalls.

Ronald J. Rychlak is the associate dean and MDLA Professor of Law at the University of Mississippi School of Law. He is the author of Hitler, the War, and the Pope (2000) and Righteous Gentiles (2005).

- - -

The mission of InsideCatholic.com is to be a voice for authentic Catholicism in the public square.We believe that truth is both attractive and compelling and that in the marketplace of ideas, it will invariably win out.

Keywords:

NEWSLETTERS »

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 13 Comments

Leonard Fong Roka
1 year ago
Humanity is falling apart! We'd gone beyond Bibical teachings...Homos, are sick in the head and satanic control.
Rick
3 years ago
LOL!!!

It has been a pleasure, as always, to read the posts. Both sides so adamant that the other is wrong...yet both sound like children throwing tantrums. You go to a post looking for some insight and you come away with a post like this. Classy!!!

It strikes me funny that those for same sex marriage try to reason with themselves, and quite frankly God, that their opinions are right. That somehow they can chose what pieces/words from scripture they want to justify their actions. Milf says, "I praise Jesus in all his glory because his message of peace, love, understanding and unconditional acceptance for all people trumps whatever the heck you fundamentalist wackos are trying to sell" or trumps whatever the heck Jesus said in another part of the bible? Foolish!

Or deb says "There are much bigger "evils" in the world and commented on by the Bible that deserve attention more than this." Well, quite frankly I am glad the Catholic Church will stand up for something they believe in. Just because you haven't considered the fact that the church has commented and given quite a lot of attention to other "evils", shouldn't dismiss the fact that they also consider homosexuality "evil". Go figure, the church has maintained their same position for hundreds of years. Oh yeah, abomination can mean forbidden, unclean, exceptionally loathsome, hateful, sinful, wicked, or vile...so I guess that is where "evil" was implied. Kinda like murder...not really "evil" though is it?

I am not Catholic, nor do I believe the Pope's ministry to be apostolic. However, I sure commend his ability to live a life that guides millions to live better lives, trying to following "all" of the teachings of Jesus. What the church has done for everyone in this country has been belittled, and quite frankly Holly you truly are out of line in your Pope comment. Oh yeah, and to think that you don't benefit from any churches tax status...I would maybe try and think for a minute before making such a delayed comment. Wouldn't it be fun to leave all of that up to the government. I don't think so.

Big picture, I think there are a lot of people out there trying to do what they feel is good and right. Either on a religious aspect, trying to follow their Savior's teachings, or from a social aspect, standing up for the rights of a friend or humanity. Either way, criticizing another's views does not help the situation.

Thanks for reading, yours truly,
"some generic web surfer"
Ben
3 years ago
Churches shouldn't get tax breaks for anything but what they do in charity anyway.
Amanda
3 years ago
Miss Holly. You really need to get a grip on yourself. Saying the Pope is an idiot is totally uncalled for. Attacking someone's religion simply because you don't like that it opposes your lifestyle is wrong. People have their beliefs and that is something you need to learn in life. So be it, let us Catholics lose out tax status, but then, you will see us unite stronger than ever. Evil always thinks it can hit a mark and we will finally come bowing down to evil's feet and evil believes that it can hurt us enough that we will give in to its unjust ways. Guess what, one thing we all learned from God is that evil will try to win, and will play as dirty as it has to to do so. So we know we will have to face some hard ships and that we will be persecuted for standing by God's side. Guess what, when that happens, we know we're doing something right, because evil is trying it's damnest to wim.
Bulbajer
4 years ago
Holly, although your point about homosexuals and intristic evils is good, your position on Catholicism and Catholics is much mistaken. A great deal of Catholics today focus not on the political wargrounds but on praising Gd and helping the poor in the world, which is a lot better than arguing back and forth over a silly issue like this.
deb and especially Milf Biggenson, I agree.
Jean Schneider: up until now, I admit I have not been a big fan of France, but now, it's starting to look pretty good.
Holly
4 years ago
What is the definition of intrinsic evil? What is evil? Homosexuals are NEVER refered to as evil in the bible, abomination simply means against custom or ritual, how does that translate to evil? Maybe in the NIV it does since the translators made up their own rules. I love how you Catholics want to hold on to your ability to be bigots, and may I remind you that the pope is and has always been a flaming idiot. I hope all of you lose your tax status, none of you deserve it.
Milf Biggenson
4 years ago
Yes, the world is changing, views are evolving, gay marriage is being accepted even though that goes against what the bible has taught us. However I praise Jesus in all his glory because his message of peace, love, understanding and unconditional acceptance for all people trumps whatever the heck you fundamentalist wackos are trying to sell. Keep your nose out of other people's business. If two people of the same-sex want to get married and share their lives together, what in God's great name gives YOU the right to decide for them? WHO ARE YOU? What have YOU done that is so awe-inspiring that we should listen to what you have to say on ANY subject? God sees what you are doing and I can only imagine he or she is unhappy with how you are so narrowly-focused on one minor issue. Take stock of your lives and repent!
Katie
4 years ago
John Dean:
And as a christian, I would ask homosexuals to stop pushing their agenda on the church and stop trying to force them to accept their immoral views. If they want to participate in the church, then they need to open their eyes and see the instrinsic evil this behavior is promoting. If they want to start a Church of Sodomy and call it Sodom and Gammora then so be it. In case you have not noticed...the church does not force people to do anything. They guide people to what would keep their souls from burning in hell. If people want to be immoral, then they are going to be, but they should not force immorality on those who choose to live a morral life. Secularism will be this country's downfall. When we forsake God, he will forsake us.
Jean Schneider
4 years ago
Wouldn't it be best if we had a sort of dual system, as I understand exists in France? Civil contracts and/or religious marriage. That way legal enforcement would involve the civil contracts and religions would enforce their own rules on their adherents.
Gene Ledbetter
4 years ago
Those who think in social terms alone may wonder why marriage should only take place between one man and one woman. The answer lies in biology: it is relations between one man and one woman that populate a society. To the extent that a society loses track of this point, it will eventually be replaced by another society that knows better.

Prev12 Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment