Same-Sex Marriage vs. Religious Liberty

                                                                                                              Vol. XIX, No. 8, October 2006

In November, Virginians will be faced with a decision - should we define marriage in our state Constitution as the union of one man and one woman? Virginia law already forbids same-sex marriage, but that law is under constant threat of judicial activism. Only an amendment to the state Constitution can guarantee the protection of the traditional definition of marriage.

As Christians, and in particular pastors, consider how they should vote on this important measure, one aspect of the marriage debate is beginning to rise to the surface. And the prospects should the amendment lose are frightening.

Many are coming to believe that same-sex marriage is the primary threat to religious liberty in our lifetime. While that may sound like hyperbole, recent incidents from across the nation indicate that the battle between religious liberty and sexual liberty may be the defining issue of our time. Where same-sex marriage has been legalized in other nations, we already have evidence of quickly diminishing religious freedoms.

In Sweden, Pastor Ake Green faced two years imprisonment for the crime of “engaging in hate speech against persons based upon their sexual orientation.” His charges were based on a sermon he preached against homosexuality. Green was prosecuted, found guilty and originally sentenced to jail for 30 days. Another, Swedish pastor, Ulf Eckman, was threatened with prosecution and jail for reading scripture regarding homosexuality. Prosecutors decided not to press charges despite pressure from homosexual activists.

Closer to home, in Canada, Reverend Stephen Boissoin was brought before the Human Rights Commission to answer to a complaint filed after Boissoin published a letter to the editor in which he denounced homosexuality as immoral and dangerous, and called into question new gay-rights curriculums permeating the province’s educational system. He faces $7000 in fines.

Some may say, “But that can’t happen here, this is America, we have the First Amendment to protect us.”

Earlier this summer, Maggie Gallagher, one of the nation’s prominent experts on marriage and culture, published an astonishing article in The Weekly Standard entitled “Banned in Boston: The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty.” The author of numerous books, including “The Case for Marriage,” Mrs. Gallagher presents a startling case that religious liberty is the “collateral damage” when it comes to same-sex marriage.

Mrs. Gallagher references the case of Catholic Charities in Massachusetts. That state is the only one thus far to have legalized same-sex marriage. Recently, Catholic Charities were informed they either had to place children with same-sex couples through their adoption services or stop facilitating adoptions. Government officials told them that, because same-sex marriage is the law of the state, all entities were bound by law to conform their actions to that law. Because Catholic Charities refuse to ignore their religious beliefs, they have been forced to close down their adoption services. As a result, fewer foster children are going to find a permanent family.

So much for first amendment protections.

Incredibly, advocates of same-sex marriage are calling the action of the Catholic Church there “ugly”, “shameful” and “wrong.” In Massachusetts, it is now considered “ugly” and “shameful” to believe that a child should have both a mom and a dad! It is “ugly” and “shameful” to want to practice religious liberty.

Some in Massachusetts wish to reverse the court by passing a marriage amendment in that state. Petition drives to get a Constitutional amendment on the ballot forbidding same-sex marriage are underway. But homosexual radicals are going to extreme lengths to intimidate potential signers. They have gone so far as to create a website, knowtheyneighbor.org, where they list the names of those who have signed petitions in favor of the amendment (the names are public because the petitions are legal documents; that is not the case in Virginia). One person lost his job when the organization he worked for found his name on the list.

Again, where are the first amendment protections for those who seek to protect marriage?

But Massachusetts isn’t the only place where religious liberty is under assault. In another case, this time in California, a small Christian school is being sued by two students who, after announcing their homosexuality, were promptly dismissed by the school. Legal scholars fear that the kids may win their case, forcing Bible-based schools to either accept and condone the homosexual lifestyle or close their doors.

These cases are not happening in Europe or elsewhere, they are taking place in the same country that was founded by those seeking escape from religious persecution. They are happening in the United States of America. They are happening at our doorstep. Anyone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle will become a target.

One law professor was quoted in Mrs. Gallagher’s article saying, “There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases sexual liberty should win. I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” Interestingly, according to the article, that professor is considered one of the “more reasonable” advocates of same-sex marriage.

Clearly, that was not the kind of liberty Patrick Henry was willing to die to protect!

Unfortunately, if we are not successful in protecting the definition of marriage in our Commonwealth, things are only going to get worse. Make no mistake – the threat to our religious liberty is real. And those who seek to silence Christians certainly have their advocates with groups like the ACLU and People for the American Way. Now, PFAW is raising money to help defeat the amendment in Virginia.

Why would an organization that is trying to stifle religious liberty be interested in the defeat of a marriage amendment? Clearly, those who seek to quiet religious speech understand that they have an ally same-sex marriage.

Without a Constitutional amendment protecting the definition of marriage, stories like these will quickly become the norm here in Virginia. While that may sound alarmist, the fact is that these things didn't happen even in Massachusetts before that state legalized same-sex marriage. With marriage redefined, family is redefined, and those who disagree with that new paradigm are soon subjected to abuse and harassment.

The question for Virginians is simple – is this the future we want for our Commonwealth?

[Readers interested in more information on this topic can visit the website of Needle’s Eye Ministry: www.va4marriage.org or email them at roger@va4marriage.org .]