|
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
 |
The Daily Signal
Government to
Ordained Ministers: Celebrate Same-Sex Wedding or Go to Jail
Ryan T. Anderson
October 18, 2014
For years, those in favor of same-sex marriage have argued that all
Americans should be free to live as they choose. And yet in countless
cases, the government has coerced those who simply wish to be free to
live in accordance with their belief that marriage is the union of a
man and a woman.
Ministers face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they
decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.
Just this weekend, a case has arisen in Idaho, where city officials
have told ordained ministers they have to celebrate same-sex weddings
or face fines and jail time.
The Idaho case involves Donald and Evelyn Knapp, both ordained
ministers, who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel. Officials from Coeur
d’Alene, Idaho, told the couple that because the city has a
non-discrimination statute that includes sexual orientation and gender
identity, and because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down
Idaho’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a
man and a woman, the couple would have to officiate at same-sex
weddings in their own chapel.
The non-discrimination statute applies to all “public accommodations,”
and the city views the chapel as a public accommodation.
On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and the
Knapps politely declined. The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and
$1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.
A week of honoring their faith and declining to perform the ceremony
could cost the couple three and a half years in jail and $7,000 in
fines.
Government Coercion
The Knapps have been married to each other for 47 years and are both
ordained ministers of the International Church of the Foursquare
Gospel. They are “evangelical Christians who hold to historic Christian
beliefs” that “God created two distinct genders in His image” and “that
God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman.”
But as a result of the courts redefining marriage and a city ordinance
that creates special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender
identity, the Knapps are facing government coercion.
Governmental recognition of same-sex relationships as marriages need
not and should not require any third party to recognize a same-sex
relationship as a marriage. Government should respect the rights of all
citizens. Indeed, a form of government respectful of free association,
free contracts, free speech and free exercise of religion should
protect citizens’ rights to live according to their beliefs about
marriage.
The Knapps have been celebrating weddings in their chapel since 1989.
Government should not now force them to shut down or violate their
beliefs.
After all, protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience
does not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms. No one has a right to
have the government force a particular minister to marry them. Some
citizens may conclude that they cannot in good conscience participate
in same-sex ceremonies, from priests and pastors to bakers and
florists. They should not be forced to choose between strongly held
religious beliefs and their livelihood.
What Can Be Done
At the federal level, Congress has an opportunity to protect religious
liberty and the rights of conscience.
Government should not now force ordained ministers to shut down or
violate their beliefs.
Policy should prohibit the government from discriminating against any
individual or group, whether nonprofit or for-profit, based on their
beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and woman or that sexual
relations are reserved for marriage. The government should be
prohibited from discriminating against such groups or individuals in
tax policy, employment, licensing, accreditation or contracting.
The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act—sponsored by Rep. Raul Labrador,
R-Idaho, in the House (H.R. 3133) with more than 100 co-sponsors of
both parties, and sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, in the Senate (S.
1808) with 17 co-sponsors—would prevent the federal government from
taking such adverse actions.
States need similar policy protections, including broad protections
provided by state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs) and
specific protections for beliefs and actions about marriage.
Indeed, Idaho has a RFRA, called the Free Exercise of Religion
Protected Act (FERPA). State RFRAs prevent the imposition of
substantial burdens on sincere religious beliefs unless the government
proves that such a burden advances a compelling government interest
that has been pursued through the least restrictive means possible.
Protecting Religious Liberty
It is unclear how the city could claim that forcing the Knapps to
perform a same-sex wedding is a compelling government interest being
pursued in the least restrictive way. There are numerous other venues
where a same-sex couple could get married. Indeed, there is a county
clerks office directly across the street from the chapel.
States must protect the rights of Americans and the associations they
form—both nonprofit and for-profit—to speak and act in the public
square in accordance with their beliefs. It is particularly egregious
that the city would coerce ordained ministers to celebrate a religious
ceremony in their chapel. The Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a
motion arguing that this action “violates [the Knapps’s] First and 14th
Amendment rights to freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion,
substantive due process, and equal protection.”
Citizens must work to prevent or repeal laws that create special
privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity. We must
also insist on laws that protect religious freedom and the rights of
conscience.
Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience is the
embodiment of a principled pluralism that fosters a more diverse civil
sphere. Indeed, tolerance is essential to promoting peaceful
coexistence even amid disagreement.
Read this and other articles at The Daily Signal
|
|
|
|
