When it comes to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, you can’t have one without the other. The attempt to redefine marriage here in Maine (again) also tests this union of freedoms.
Our Founding Fathers knew the inherent connection of these two integral freedoms and demonstrated their supreme relevance to a free society by making this the primary amendment in our Bill of Rights. Including free speech and religious freedom in our Constitution’s First Amendment was profoundly wise and arguably one of their greatest contributions to political history.
Because one of the Christian Civic League’s major tenets is defending religious freedom, I am greatly concerned about the language recently submitted for the same-sex marriage petition that seeks to redefine marriage here in Maine.
The question reads: “Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples that protects religious freedom by ensuring no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?”
The inclusion of religious freedom in this petition language is the same smokescreen used in New York which allowed legislators to justify accepting political pay-offs in order to abandon the defense of natural marriage. The language in the New York law and the Maine petition gives the false impression that residents’ religious rights are being broadly protected, but that is not the case.
The prescribed protections pertain only to clergies specifically in regard to wedding ceremonies. Think about what a tiny number of people that represents. There is no protection for faith-based organizations or other individuals who find participation in a same-sex marriage contrary to their religious beliefs.
So whose religious freedoms are being protected?
Ask the adoption agencies and foster care providers in Massachusetts and Illinois who closed their doors rather than being forced to provide services to same-sex couples.
Ask the town clerks in New York who refused to grant marriage licenses based upon their religious beliefs — deputy clerks could have still provided licenses and protected the rights of both parties.
Ask the New Jersey Christian campground owners who refused to rent their facilities for a same-sex civil union.
What about the florist or the organist who objects on religious grounds? What about public educators who have been suspended or fired for stating their opinions regarding same-sex marriage?
The challenge with freedom of religion and free speech is they often get messy. Defenders of the Constitution are well aware not all speech (religious or otherwise) is noble; as a matter fact, sometimes it may be very offensive. This is where political correctness has been allowed to run roughshod over what should be protected religious speech.
Those who defend natural marriage are more and more becoming aware their position is controversial and to some offensive. Attempts to silence these views are gaining momentum through campaigns of “tolerance.” As distasteful as some opinions of those who oppose same-sex marriage may be, lovers of freedom (conservative and liberal) should unify in opposition to any attempt to erode constitutionally protected speech.
Many times I am asked, “Why do you oppose the redefinition of marriage? How does it impact you and your marriage?” This is not about my marriage or any one marriage. There are societal consequences of undermining the fundamental building block of civilization — marriage. Threats to marriage have indeed already impacted religious freedom and free speech across our country and here in our state.
The protection of religious freedom and freedom of speech is not the only reason I oppose redefining marriage, but it certainly is at the epicenter of this critical debate.
We have a long year ahead of us before Mainers show up to the voting booths and determine whether or not they desire to redefine marriage. I believe society should protect and defend marriage, not undermine it.
Carroll L. Conley Jr. is executive director of the Christian Civic League.
In 2005, the people of Maine voted No on this question: “Do you want to reject the new law that would protect people from discrimination in employment, housing, education, public accommodations and credit based on their sexual orientation?”
Under the law that was retained, people are already prohibited from discriminating against gay and lesbian people in public accommodations.
Mr. Conley:
Just what are you scared of? Your position lacks merit because your organization wants to take freedom away from people. The “Christian” Civic League wants to stop legislation to prevent bullying. Why is this? Please explain.
You also don’t want people whom you disagree with to enjoy the same rights as you; yet, support Newt Gingrich, a lying cheater.
Son, you really need to take a good look at yourself because you do not speak for God. You do speak for evil.
We’re only having this discussion because gays are an “acceptable” minority to discriminate against and openly loath. Would you read a piece like this seriously if it was about interracial marriage? Because about 40 years ago, they were using religious arguments not different from these in court to keep interracial marriage from being legalized. What about interfaith marriages? Or what about just a plain difference of religion between a business owner and an opposite sex couple being married? Would you support the rights of a muslim florist to deny two Christians service? Or the adoption of a child?
You really need to think about what you’re saying.
Conley is wasting his time. The civil liberties crowd doesn’t care anything about liberty, only to advance their own radical agenda, with their objective being nothing less than the total transformation of our society.
Nothing like a good conspiracy theory to back up a failed argument !
Go jump in a lake
Nice one.
~rolls eyes~
Mr. Conley, you do have your religious freedom as well as freedom of speech; you may believe and say whatever you want. In return please respect others’ freedom from your particular religion. Gay marriage does not affect your religion in any way whatsoever but it will provide great comfort to others. Since you don’t think of your friends’ marriages in purely sexual terms, treat the marriages of gay people the same way. They just want to live in peace, just like you.
To keep two people from getting married is a denial of civil rights, plain and simple.
To keep two people who are devoted and in love from marrying who are determined to…
Is arguably delusional…
You’re right. I would go further and say it is a shame that the federal government doesn’t step in and protect everyone’s right to marry as simply enforcing civil rights law. Unfortunately our Congress doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to do so.
You have no right to state who has the right to marry or not. It is a human right to love and to express this love with the HUMAN right to marry. The only societal consequence I see by not allowing marriage to go through is more confused youth who are told that they are wrong, wrong to be living, and wrong to express their love for a member of their same sex.
I am very optimistic that this will pass in November and I hope that this is a strong step in the direction of ending hatred by not segregating any longer.
What’s love got to do with it?
They never claim that love is a reason for marriage. (Contrary to Mr. Sinatra’s proclamation).
Logical and well thought out. And, as with anything that is logical and well thought out, it will get bashed by those that are incapable of logical thinking. Some will even say Mr. Conley is radical, without even a thought as to just how radical the same-sex supporters are. Should be a long comment thread with plenty of mud-slinging.
“And, as with anything that is logical and well thought out, it will get bashed by those that are incapable of logical thinking.”
That’s rich!!!
And true. And being proven by so many on here.
Yea… um… lets just explore that Christian logic for a moment.
Zeus takes the form of a white bull in order to have his way with Europa
Christian Logic: That’s ridiculous
God takes the form of a burning bush in order to speak to Moses
Christian Logic: That is exactly how it happened too!
The Nordic god Thor is the son of Odin and the giantess Jord
Christian Logic: No way on God’s green Earth
Mary immaculately conceives Jesus defying biology
Christian Logic: What a great gift to humanity!
Through observation and scientific study, Galileo discovers what the Mayan’s have known for centuries, that the Sun, not the Earth is the center of our universe.
Christian Logic: Throw him in jail for heresy.
The only thing I can say is that your comment is profoundly stupid. Why did you drag Christians into the argument?
Why do you ?
On this particular comment, I didn’t.
Once again, the argument against same sex marriage falls flat. And, I am offended at the intentional language change in this piece that refers to heterosexual marriage as “natural marriage” as if a same sex union is “unnatural”. There is nothing unnatural about two people committing their lives to each other. And there is no reason why a gay couple should not adopt a child, or be foster parents.
Undermining marriage?? When I hear comments like that from people I actually get a bit angry. With divorce rates hovering at 50% for “natural” marriages, I would say that the traditional concept of marriage no longer exists. If people want traditional marriage they can have it: it included no divorce, no adultery under penalty of death. All the heterosexual opponents of same sex marriage–why don’t you get busy living out your “traditional, natural” marriage and leave the rest of us alone?
I can’t wait for Maine to be the first state to make same sex marriage legal by a direct people’s vote!
First, what we know as the First Amendment was not the first amendment submitted as part of the Bill of Rights. It was actually the third amendment submitted. (See http://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2011/nr11-21.html)
Second, this column reeks of Focus on the Family nonsense that makes up a war on religious freedom.
“Natural” marriage originally allowed a man to have multiple wives. Then it allowed only men and women of the same race to marry one another. That “natural” marriage can only be between one woman and one man is a myth.
Mr. Conley’s argument is essentially that he has a First Amendment right not to have his religious conscience upset. Sorry, Mr. Conley, but there is no First Amendment right not to be upset. You don’t have to recognize any marriage in a religious context if you don’t want to. But you do not have the right to force your religious beliefs on a contract between two adults and the government. Religion and government should not mix. That is why we have what we now know as the First Amendment.
It also reminds me of the ridiculous “THE GAY STORM” clip from NOM that showed similar examples that misrepresented the facts of the case. I mean, really, is it okay for a doctor to deny helping a gay person? Really?
It just goes to show that they are being less than honest when they claim to not want to do harm, and that harm is not their underlying agenda.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
That includes passing laws that require our citizens to live according to the dictates of some religion, any religion. Keep your religion out of my life and my neighbor’s life.
By that standard, the state shouldn’t be able to recognize marriage at all.
Government does recognize marriage and has the right to. You get a marriage license, married couples have a different tax code, and laws pertaining to ownership of property and assets upon the death of a spouse without a will. People were getting married long before Christianity was around so marriage is not strictly the providence of Christianity. If anything the government is currently breaking its own laws by denying a marriage license to gay people. No government be it local, state or federal can deny anyone anything based upon race, color, creed, or sexual orientation. In essence denying a marriage license to a gay couple is the same as denying a fishing license to a woman strictly because she is a woman. Gay marriage is about special rights. Currently marriage is a special right, and this country is better than that. This country is about equality, not special rights or separate but equal. It is difficult for me to believe that in 2012 we still have special rights for a certain population (heterosexuals). The ideal here is freedom and equality for all, not just some.
The answer seems apparent: states need to get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses. States can issue committed partnership contracts or civil unions. Let each religious denomination or sect “marry” people.
But we know, of course, that this won’t satisfy the religious right. Their agenda is to force everyone to live by their religious beliefs.
Why should they?
No, Mr. Conley, the religious language was NOT put in there by the SSM side to make this issue all about religious freedom; it was put there because the last time this issue came up people with your position outright lied and claimed that churches would be forced to wed SSM couples.
It’s a bit difficult to respect you for such a blatant lie, but I’ll do the Christian thing, and forgive you for it, and give you an opportunity to apologize.
Now, the other issue, according to you, it’s OK to discriminant against a small group of people’s religious freedom, even if it has no impact on anybody else, because, well, it’s just not that many people – all I can say is wow.
How much more un-American can you get, Mr. Conley, have you no integrity, no shame ?
Your rights are protected. You are still allowed to be as bigoted as you want in your church, just like the church in Kentucky that banned interracial couples this year. They have the religious freedom to be as hateful as they want to be, and so do you. However you cannot expect the state or the government to legislate your morality on everybody else.
No, but it’s OK for you to legislate your morality on us. Under this law, private business owners in the marriage industry whose religious beliefs are against gay marriage will be forced to go against their own beliefs. This is just as much an attack on religious freedom as Obama’s contraceptives edict. The government should NEVER be able to force someone to live contrary to their faith; under this proposal they would be.
Actually there is no requirement on the initiative for individual businesses in the marriage industry to grant marriage or services to homosexual couples. Of course, I wouldn’t let facts get in your way at this point.
Actually, provisions to protect those that oppose same-sex marriage are not in the bill. Cases will go to court for years.
Should the right to discriminate of every single person who doesn’t agree with the gay be protected?
Is it okay to deny service to a gay man because your religion says homosexuality is a sin?
Is it okay to deny service to a black man because your religion tells you that they are less than others?
It’s odd that treating others as you would want to be treated seems to be ignored here.
No its not odd, it is standard practice. Christians treat others as they wish to be treated, what you don’t see is the fine print that says, “as long as you believe the same way we do”
People who are in business are already proscribed from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. You can’t refuse to sell groceries to a gay person, or rent to a gay person, or sell a bouquet of flowers to a gay person, simply because they are gay.
EJ, this is a smokescreen. I know you are a sincere religious person, but there is just no reason not to allow a couple to marry as far as the state is concerned. As for your church, it can refuse to perform a sacred marriage of a gay couple. As a Catholic, I support the right of my church not to perform a gay marriage. But I do not support the state discriminating against gay couples.
As I’ve stated on many occasions, I have no problem with allowing civil unions with all the marriage advantages for gays. Since I believe that the first marriage was conducted by God, Himself, in the Garden of Eden, and that the Bible is quite clear that homosexuality is not only a sin, but a choice (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), the institution of marriage being a union of one man and one woman should be left alone.
By the way, if I’m operating a B&B, for example, and I am a devout Christian, I should have a right to deny anyone that offends my beliefs. And if I had a Christian book store or operated a Christian school, I should not have to worry about a lawsuit if I refused to hire a gay, a Muslim, or an atheist.
If you are running that school and you accept a voucher from the state or feds then your hiring practices fall under the federal and state guidelines, therefore you would, and should, be sued for discrimination. If you keep it strictly private, you could hire monkeys to teach if you wanted. Actually hiring monkeys would be a good idea, then your students could see how evolution works first hand.
EJ, LOVE how you selectively edit which parts of the Bible you rely on, especially that the Bible defines marriage as the union of ONE man and ONE woman (emphatically, it does NOT).
Second, you are absolutely forbidden to deny any services you offer to the public as a business person to someone else because they don’t meet your definition of what constitutes a “devout Christian” (which, humorously, means you are NOT a devout Christian at all but a hypocrite). It would be no more acceptable or legal for you to deny access to your B&B to women or blacks than to married gays or lesbians. Get over it or get out of business. Tax dollars are used to pave your roads, so that your customers can travel to your business, tax dollars are used to train the police and firefighters who would respond to your 911 call if you had a problem at your business, and tax dollars are used to ensure the food you serve at your B&B is free from disease and have it carted from where it is grown to where it appears at your breakfast table.
Go back to the hole you crawled out of. Life has moved on. Get over it or get out of business.
I don’t have a B&B. That was an example.
I did not selectively edit the Bible. But, since you’re so smart, show me in the Bible where homosexuality is condoned.
You are right about one thing, however, life has moved on. Morality has been trampled. Immorality is not only tolerated, it is accepted and promoted. Many in America have no use for God anymore, because His rules interfere with their immorally chosen paths in life. Sorry, but I will not be swept away by the rushing tides of sin and corruption. And I will not stand idly by and let these tides ruin America.
I didn’t say you selectively edited the bible, I said you selectively edited which part of the teachings of the bible you rely on.
I believe the condoning of love in the bible between two men or two women can be found in Leviticus 19 and Matthew 22. But then, I am not for a moment claiming that extending the power to marry to two men or two women is a religious right. I believe it is unconstitutional to deny two men or two women the right to marry.
I for one feel your morality, if we try to institute it by law into American life, is a tide that would ruin America. What’s next–no divorce, because your interpretation of divorce is not condoned by your version of the bible, no jobs for women outside the home, because you believe the bible does not condone working mothers? I will not stand idly by and let your twisted version of morality ruin America.
A devout christian loves every one that’s what i was tough in sunday school .
Oh, the Bible says homosexuality is a choice, so it must be so…
The Bible says the universe was created in less than a week. We know for a fact that’s not true. The Bible says some people lived hundreds of years. We know for a fact that’s not true. The Bible says the Earth was stopped from rotating. We know for a fact that’s not possible.
No. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. No one knows if a person could or could not live hundreds of years. And if God wanted to stop the earth from moving, or even reverse it, He could.
Evolution has nothing to do with humans’ longevity. There is zero evidence that anybody has ever lived more than 150 years. Zero. None. Zilch.
And no, “God” cannot stop the Earth from rotating. Or are you going to claim that physics is nonsense?
The Bible is nothing more than a bunch of stories that seek to explain what people of that time didn’t understand. Also, it was written to manipulate people into subscribing to particular beliefs to further political goals.
How odd it is that for all of the time God spent talking to prophets a little more than 2,000 years ago, he has been quite silent for almost 2,000 years since then…
Oh, ye of little, or no, faith.
Crawl back in your hole, EJ. Crawl back into your hole.
Can’t. It’s already overloaded with left-wing pacifists that can’t think for themselves. I’d rather live in the world where there are definite lines between good and evil, right and wrong, left and right. And I prefer to leave both eyes open. You should try it sometime.
Marriage has been “re-defined” a long time ago it appears. Let same sex couples get married if they want. It’s not like you’re protecting the “sanctity of marriage” in this day and age when all but around 2% of marriages end in divorce. If nothing else we can provide some work for the divorce lawyers when the same sex couples decide, like we do, that instead of making it work we’ll just press the reset button and start a new game. The institution of marriage in this country was destroyed decades ago which is what led to this “care-free” society that has no responsibility to follow anything through. We are a fine culture to be deciding who can get married and who cannot when we cannot even handle the responsibility ourselves.
98% of marriages do not end in divorce. You are wrong. You’re allowed to have your own opinions, but not your own facts.
But more than half do end in divorce. That’s one in two marriages and you’re going to claim that it’s gays that will ruin marriage?
In the locations that are the settings for some of the examples there is no option for same-sex couples to wed in those states. New Jersey and Illinois do not allow it. However, there are already laws that prevent discrimination against those who are homosexual so non-church entity that discriminates against gays are violating the law.
The New Jersey example is especially notable because in that case, the church rented to the public for non-church activities but chose to exclude one segment of the public.
Its chilling that the idea of using religious freedom as an excuse to discriminate in everyday life is being seen as acceptable. Would it be okay for a Protestant to discriminate against a Jew, I wonder, on the basis of religious freedom, because Jews don’t view Jesus Christ the same way.
The only discrimination in that case is the state forcing people to violate their religious beliefs. You have no constitutional right to get married in a certain place, or to get married at all; I do have a constitutional right to practice my religion as I see fit.
There are two separate issues here.
There are already laws in this state and others that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Allowing my church to marry us and allowing the state to issue that legal contract has nothing to do with your religion, does it?
If it does, then we are in a huge mess because then you are saying that your religion trumps everyone else’s religious beliefs, including the beliefs of those who aren’t religious at all. Is that what you’re saying?
I don’t think that you do, actually now that I think of it, have the right to practice your religion as you see fit.
You do not have a right to use your church as a business unless you are going to follow the same rules as every other business. It isn’t complicated. You do not have the right to refuse service based on discrimination.
the fact is bible or not religion or not “Natural Marriage” is a term made up by MAN not God! While I understand that NO ONE, religious leaders or not, should be made to do something they dont believe in, I believe the question on the ballot for Maine is a disgrace for same sex marriages! That being said WHATEVER your religious beliefs the FACT is Marriage is a sacred union between 2 people, not between you and God! History has taught the intelligent open minded population that centuries ago there was a commitment between 2 people and that commitment was to be honored until death! There were no ceremonies no Rabbis, Ministers, Priests overseeing the marriages UNLESS of course you went outside it then you were killed :/ ! I realize that there are thousands that believe being gay is sinful, and thats OK you believe what YOU want, BUT for Gods sake do what Jesus did and LOVE EVERYONE equally, let people make their own choices how to love, and If it’s wrong then let them also be Judged by their Judge NOT YOURS!
I guess I missed the part of the Bible where Jesus endorsed gay marriage. Was that in Corinthians?
I missed the part where the Bible was relevant to the discussion. Was it the 1st Amendment?
I think it was right after the lion asked the mouse to take the thorn out of his paw… no wait that was Aesop, um… it was when Jason and the Argonaut’s were on the boat talking during some down time in the search for the Golden Fleece… no that was the Iliad… sorry I get great works of fiction like Aesop’s Fables, The Iliad, and the Bible confused sometimes.
Matthew 22.
Some might say that the state is discrimination against those who’s religion is open and affirming in regards to homosexuality.
Why is it okay that some churches policies of exclusion take precedent over other churches policies of inclusion?
What about the religious freedom of the many religions that want to bless same-sex marriages? Are these religions of a lesser God or something? I don’t get it with you religious extremists, Mr. Conley: you demand respect for yourself, while simultaneously stepping on the religious freedom of others. Shameful.
He demands respect for his religion, while he seeks to suppress everyone else’s religious freedom.
He’s a real gem, but at least he’s an obvious hypocrite.
Right, anyone who has different religious beliefs than you is an extremist. Got it.
BDN must not be getting enough submissions for opinion sections if this is the crap they are gunna run.
I respect this dude’s right to free speech but I am going to exercise mine. He is grossly misinformed and seems to think that the first amendment protects religious rights. It protects your choice to practice a religion and will not make law that infringes on your choice to practice said religion or its customs.
If that is how the ballot question is going to appear it makes good constitutional sense.
2+2=4….just the way it is. Marriage is and always has been a union between one man and one woman, establishing a covenant with God. Proponents now want to say 2+2=5. A union between two people of the same sex is not marriage, no matter how much revisionists or people who like to re-define words to fit their agenda, want it to be. It can be a civil union, but it certainly is not a covenant with God. People who want it called marriage are just being intellectually dishonest. Everyone knows it is not marriage……repeating the lie enough does not make it so….it just fools those who don’t wish to think about it. I just don’t understand why it is so important for gays to enter into this relationship ordained by God and the church when they oftentimes deny through words or deeds His existence. Seems hypocritical.
Talking about “intellectual dishonesty” ?
If gay people want to make a “covenant with God”, seems to me that’s between them and God, and none of your business.
You don’t get to dictate people’s religious views.
Substitute “inter-racial” for “homosexual” and you’ll see why this is such a weak argument. And there *are* people who object to inter-racial marriage on religious grounds!