Ohio Settles EEOC-Justice Suit On Employee Objections To Union Dues

Today the U.S. Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced a consent decree that resolves religious discrimination lawsuits against the state of Ohio, various state agencies and OCSEA (AFSCME, Local 11, AFL-CIO), a union that represents state employees. The suits alleged that the various defendants violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when they permitted members of churches that have historically opposed unionization to pay an amount equivalent to their union dues to charity, but refused to grant the same treatment to religious objectors who do not belong to these churches. They were required to pay a representation fee to the union. The suit arose out of an employee's religious objections to supporting OCSEA because the union had taken positions in favor of abortion rights and same-sex marriage. (See prior posting.) EEOC Regional Attorney Jacqueline H. McNair said that the consent decree "will protect approximately 37,000 public employees covered by the State of Ohio’s collective bargaining agreement with the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association."

New Voter Registration Drive In Evangelical Churches

Today's Los Angeles Times reports that James Dobson's Focus on the Family is beginning a massive new voter registration drive through Christian evangelical churches. The program was announced in an e-mail to supporters last week. It is recruiting county and church coordinators in 8 states: Maryland, Montana, Tennessee, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Minnesota. In Ohio, 3 million copies of voter registration instructions will be distributed in bulletins by 15,000 churches. Focus on the Family will also distribute voter guides detaiing candidates' views on issues such as same-sex marriage, abortion, and stem cell research. Critic Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, says that Dobson is jeopardizing the tax exemption of churches that take part in this project. Organizers of the project, however, say that they are within the law so long as they merely register voters and discuss values, and do not endorse a specific candidate or party.

Dissent In Washington DOMA Case Argues Establishment Clause

Yesterday, in Andersen v. King County (WA. Sup. Ct., July 26, 2006), the Washington state Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision with six different opinions upheld its Defense of Marriage Act against challenges under various provisions of the state constitution. (New York Times coverage.) The dissenting opinion of Justice Bobb J. Bridge contains an interesting anti-establishment argument. Justice Bridge argues that DOMA is "clearly an unconstitutional foray into state-sanctioned religious belief":

What we ought not to address is marriage as the sacrament or religious rite--an area into which the State is not entitled to intrude at all and which is governed by articles of faith.... As succinctly put by amici ...: "To ban gay civil marriage because some, but not all, religions disfavor it, reflects an impermissible State religious establishment."... After all, we permit civil divorce though many religions prohibit it--why such fierce protection of marriage at its beginning but not its end?...

To many, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriages are contrary to religious teachings. But none of the plaintiffs in the cases before us today seek acceptance of same-sex marriage within a particular religious community. They seek access to civil marriage. Some churches and religious organizations may refuse to solemnize same-sex unions, and that is their right in the free exercise of religion under our constitution. A religious or moral objection to same-sex marriage is not, however, a legitimate state interest that can support the DOMA....

[R]eligious restrictions on the institution of marriage have never governed civil marriage in this country, nor would it be constitutionally permissible for them to do so. For example, historically many religions have strictly forbidden marriage outside of the denomination, but these churches could not prevent interdenominational civil marriages because "marriage was [ultimately] a state matter, not subject to . . . religious restrictions."... This court cannot endorse the use of state law to impose religious sensibilities or religiously-based moral codes on others' most intimate life decisions.... The DOMA reflects a religious viewpoint; religious doctrine should not govern state regulation of civil marriage.

Will Britain Require Clergy To Bless Gays and Give Them Communion?

A posting last week discussed some of the concerns that religious groups in England have about proposed British government regulations banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in furnishing goods and services. Those concerns related to services offered by religiously affiliated organizations. Today LifeSiteNews reports the Church of England is suggesting that the regulations could have a much more direct impact on core functions of the Church itself. It says that under the proposed regulations it will be illegal for churches to deny gay and lesbian couples use of churches for civil commitment ceremonies, and clergy would be required to bless same-sex couples. It says that communion falls under the definition of services, so it would be illegal for a clergyman to deny communion to homosexuals.

In fact it seems unlikely that the final regulations will be this broad. Here is what the March 2006 Consultation Paper said about the issue:

Churches, mosques and many other religious organisations advance their faith or belief through activities such as worship, teaching and preaching, officiating in marriage, conducting baptisms and giving sacraments to members of their religious community. We recognise that there may be circumstances where the new regulations could impact on aspects of religious activity or practice in the light of the doctrines of some faiths concerning sexual orientation and the beliefs of their followers. We need to consider therefore the application of the regulations in these areas.

We are interested to hear views on the impact that the regulations may have in these areas, particularly where the regulations may impede religious observance or practices that arise from the basic doctrines of a faith. Any exceptions from the regulations for religious organisations would need to be clearly defined and our starting point is that these should be limited to activities closely linked to religious observance or practices that arise from the basic doctrines of a faith.

Romney's Presidential Bid and His Mormon Religion

Today’s Weekend Edition of the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) carries a front-page article on Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s potential bid for the presidency and how his Mormon religious faith will impact his chances.

The article begins with an account of Romney’s dead-pan humor speaking to the Republican Jewish Coalition in Palm Beach, Florida:

"You may have heard that I’m Mormon," Mr. Romney told the crowd, adding that it’s "very difficult being Mormon" in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legalized. "You see for us, marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman."

In meetings with Christian conservatives, Romney is able to say, "I personally believe that Jesus Christ is my savior." He contends that voters will choose “individuals who are people of faith”, but he does not think that the "brand of faith" should matter.

Romney’s consultants do not believe that his religious affiliation will be as important to voters as political insiders are suggesting. Strategists believe, however, that Romney will eventually have to confront the religious issue directly.

More On The Marriage Protection Amendment Debate

As the Senate today debates the Marriage Protection Amendment (see prior posting), with a vote possible tomorrow, proponents warn that without it religious organizations may end up being forced to provide benefits to same-sex couples even if doing so violates the organizations' religious beliefs. Others say that this fear is exaggerated. (Chicago Tribune story.) Meanwhile some others note that the date set for a Senate vote, June 6, 2006, has the ominous abbreviation "6 6 06". (The Conservative Voice.)

Scholarly Papers On Gay Marriage And Religious Liberty

Earlier this month, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty posted online seven papers from a private conference it hosed last December titled "Scholars’ Conference on Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty". An Associated Press report today summarized the findings of those papers: "If gay marriage becomes recognized under law across the country, religious groups could face challenges to customary ways of doing business, even to their finances."

Religious Activists Protesting Social Service Cuts Arrested At Capitol

Today at the Cannon House Office Building, U.S. Capitol Police arrested 115 liberal religious activists who were part of a peaceful sit-in protesting a Republican budget bill that would cut $42 billion over five years from a range of federal programs, including health care for the poor and elderly and possibly child care, student loans and food stamps. Reuters today reported on the developments and indicated that also local prayer vigils were being planned for today in 32 states by "Call to Renewal," a network of churches and other religious organizations. UPDATE: An article syndicated by the Chicago Tribune reports on remarks at the rally by Christian activist, Rev. Jim Wallis.

Meanwhile, this morning the Washington Post ran an article asking: "Why in recent years have conservative Christians asserted their influence on efforts to relieve Third World debt, AIDS in Africa, strife in Sudan and international sex trafficking -- but remained on the sidelines while liberal Christians protest domestic spending cuts?" Conservative religious leaders answer that by arguing that it is a matter of priorities, saying their primary attention is focused on issues of abortion, same-sex marriage and seating judges who will back their position against those practices. Others, such as Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, focus on the responsibility of the private sector: "There is a [biblical] mandate to take care of the poor. There is no dispute of that fact," he said. "But it does not say government should do it. That's a shifting of responsibility."

Catholic Bishops Considering How To Treat Dissenting Politicians

According to the Associated Press, a Roman Catholic bishops' special task force on Catholic politicians who disagree with the Church on issues like abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage will confer with Democratic and Republican lawmakers in Washington this week. During the 2004 Presidential campaign, the issue of whether dissenting Catholic candidates should be barred from receiving Holy Communion became an important issue. Last year the U.S. bishops agreed that officeholders who support abortion rights or euthanasia are "cooperating in evil", but only individual bishops would decide whether they should receive communion. The new task force may have revised guidelines ready for the U.S. bishops' next meeting in June, in advance of the upcoming congressional campaign. Washington's Cardinal Theodore McCarrick who chairs the task force said the bishops were discussing with college presidents the possibility of denying awards and speech invitations to such candidates. Some bishops want a ban on all appearances while others would only ban speeches on topics where there is disagreement with church teaching.

Alberta to Protect Officials With Religious Objections to Performing Gay Marriage

Now that Canada has recognized same-sex marriages, individual provinces are concerned about protecting marriage commissioners who have religious scruples against performing such ceremonies. (See earlier posting.) Alberta Justice Minister Ron Stevens has promised to introduce legislation to shield commissioners from human rights complaints in such cases, even if it means invoking the "notwithstanding clause" of Sec. 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that permits laws to override the Charter, subject to re-enactment every 5 years. Today's Globe and Mail reports on these developments and says that the Canadian federal government is unlikely to oppose such a law. In Alberta, use of the "notwithstanding clause" requires a province-wide referendum. A marriage minister in Manitoba has already been sued by a gay couple after he refused to perform a wedding ceremony for them.

Canada Enacts Law Permitting Gay Marriage, Protecting Religious Objections

Canada on Wednesday became the fourth country to officially recognize gay marriage as the Senate passed Bill C-38 (Washington Blade ) and the act received royal assent (RedNova News).

The new statute contains two provisions specifically protecting the religious freedom of those who object to gay unions: "officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs" and "no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom."

The full text and legislative history of the Act is available online.

Canadian Lawyers Claim Pending Gay Marriage Bill Threatens Clergy

In Canada, in February the government proposed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage (Bill C-38). Today LifeSite News reports on a letter to members of Parliament from a group of lawyers claiming that enactment will lead to litigation against religious officials and groups that refuse to solemnize same-sex marriages. Even though the proposed bill provides that "officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs", the lawyers claim that "the Parliament of Canada cannot protect religious groups or officials from [lawsuits] because the solemnization of marriage lies within the exclusive competence of the provinces."