Two weeks ago, American University law professor
Jamie Raskin testified before the Judicial Proceedings Committee of the Maryland State Senate in opposition to a proposed state constitutional amendment that would bar gay marriage. His testimony (
full text) focused directly on free exercise and establishment clause issues posed by the amendment. He said:
[W]hen I hear testimony from my fellow Marylanders about how ending statewide marriage discrimination would collide with their church beliefs, my response is simple and, I hope, reassuring: Your church will never have to perform a marriage ceremony of any gay couple or indeed any couple of any kind that it disapproves of....
But the irony here is that the State today is stopping many churches and temples from marrying gay couples that the churches want to marry. That is, the State today is violating the rights of many churches--including Unitarian, Episcopal, Presybeterian and Jewish congregations, among many others--who seek to perform lawful weddings for their parishioners but may not simply because other groups of citizens think it would be wrong for them to do it.
Because America is for all its citizens regardless of religion and because so many churches have so many different belief systems, we are governed here not by religious law but by secular law. The rules of civil marriage--the license that the State grants you to marry--must be determined with respect to the federal and state Constitutions, not particular religious claims, no matter how fervently held.
Later, in response to a Senator's question about whether "God's law" prohibits gay marriage, Raskin replied:
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You didn't place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
Raskin himself is a candidate for Maryland's State Senate this year.
[Thanks to Roy Mersky via Religionlaw for the information.]
