Earlier I wrote about the Arizona Brush & Nib case, another in the line of legal cases addressing the conflict, real or apparent, between religious freedoms and anti-discrimination law. I suggested the possibility of carving out marriage for special treatment by anti-discrimination law, but did not really say why that would be reasonable. Marriage is a peculiarly mixed religious and secular event. Marriages are registered with the state and many are performed by civil servants. )I have no idea of the relative numbers of civil and religious marriages.) The practice in the US is not clearly one or the other, but for a large portion of the population, the religious significance of marriage is quite clear and quite important. It is then reasonable to think that for some the religious significance of the marriage is integral to the event, for those directly participating as the ones being wed and their witnessing families and friends, and for those providing services enabling the celebration. It looks and is different from the services enabling a graduation party, for example. Recognizing this and allowing the religious to limit their participation in marriages that are contrary to their religious views treats their religious committments with respect, it respects their religious identity, which is to say their identity. It says nothing about the identities of others or about the place of others in society. It could be read then as not challenging or impugning the citizenship and dignity of others. So the same-sex couple are not denied dignity or rightful place by allowing the religious to decline wedding specific services for a wedding the religious believe offends their religious committments.
Of course, it looks or may look rather different from the perspective of the persons denied services. Even if one accepted the above, there must certainly be available equivalent services (in cost and quality) in the same place, which I think likely in large urban areas. So one has a line that accommodates both the religious and same-sex couple. And the line looks sharp. Well, looks.
This is a candidate in large part because it keeps a tight focus on marriage, building on the peculiarly religious aspects of the event. I am not bothered by the secular versions -- fight for civil unions outside of marriage and put the marriage into a fully religious category. That is not the big obstacle at hand. The big obstacle at hand is that it does not look reasonable to confine the special treatment of the religious to the little world of wedding cakes and invitations or photo shoots. The religious view can as well be pervasive and ubiquitous. Religion is a fundamental aspect of identity, or can be. And where it is, it can be expected that in some significant portion of cases to imbue every aspect of life with choice that it is weighty. There is no means to put a line around weddings that will not, on more or less the same grounds, be drawn to include all or most other transactions or interactions. Hobby Lobby comes to mind. So one exempts weddings and paying insurance. Why stop there? How to stop there with reasons?
I think then one is at a fork in the road:devalue the religious identity, leave religious practice with little dignity, or leave others at the mercy of the religious.
Recent Comments