Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage, concerns some citizens because they believe religious liberty is threatened by it.
The University of North Texas hosted a debate on the controversy between marriage equality and religious liberty last Thursday morning in honor of Constitution Day.
The speakers for this debate were Rebecca Robertson, head attorney of the American Civil Liberties Union in Texas, and Chelsea Youman, Chief of staff at Liberty Institute. Multiple students gathered in the Auditorium building at 11 a.m. to hear what they had to say on the matter.
Students attended for various reasons: some came to gain class extra credit, others because this debate took the place of their class for the day, and a few students were genuinely curious on what the debaters had to say on the topic.
“I’m a research junkie,” said Graham Day, a freshman at UNT. “I’m also gay and I come from a Christian background, so I wanted to see what their arguments for both sides would be.”
Robertson and Youman both had time to present their views, and their overall thoughts on marriage equality and religious liberty were in the same vein.
“They didn’t really argue on most things,” said Ursel Khan, a senior at UNT. “I kind of wanted to see fireworks,” Khan said, chuckling.
Both Robertson and Youman agreed that we must, and eventually will, find a way for these principles to coexist. According to Robertson, our nation and our state are involved in a very important conversation about the balance between two important principles in our constitution, religious liberty and marriage equality.
“One of our defining characteristics of being American is the principle of equality,” Robertson said. “We are to be treated equally by our government. The government doesn’t get to favor or disfavor citizens and treat them differently, all of us must be treated in the same manner.”
Jim Obergefell, whose case was decided in June 2015, lived in Ohio with his longtime partner John Arthur. In 2011, Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, otherwise known as Lou Gehrigs disease. At this time, same-sex marriage was illegal in the state of Ohio; Obergefell and Arthur went to Maryland in 2013 to legally marry each other.
However, when they arrived home in Ohio, their marriage was not legally recognized by the state. This meant that when Arthur died in 2013, his death certificate stated that he was single man. When heterosexual couples marry outside of their home state, the state acknowledges their marriage when they return. Since homosexual marriage was banned in the state of Ohio, the government refused to acknowledge Obergefell and Arthur’s marriage.
“This was the resolution of a legal question, not a moral question or a religious question,” Robertson said. “The court concluded that Ohio did not have a valid reason for their ban, so it struck down Ohio’s marriage ban as well as the bans across the rest of the country.”
Some people of faith celebrated the court’s decision, and some did not. According to Youman, the issues with marriage equality and religious liberty occur when those who disagree with homosexual marriage are discriminated against.
For instance, Dr. Eric Walsh, a renowned physician and local preacher in the state of Georgia, was hired by the state as a public health official. Shortly afterwards, some of his sermons on marriage surfaced, and because he was speaking out against same-sex marriage, he was fired from his job as a public health official.
Youman also said that activists are arguing that faith-based nonprofit organizations’ government funding should be taken away, or that they should lose their tax-exempt status because of their religious beliefs. Religious schools and colleges are also facing threats of losing accreditation and financial aid for students because they provide a religious education.
“The first amendment ensures that those who are religious are allowed to continue the family structure that they have long revered,” Youman said. “No one should be penalized for his or her religious views. The government should be respectful of people’s views and their choice to view marriage as a heterosexual union.”
Robertson agreed that the Obergefell v. Hodges decision should in no way make people of faith change their beliefs.
“The people who think the court got it wrong are still able to read their texts,” said Robertson. “They are still able to evangelize, and they can preach that homosexuality is wrong. They are free to advocate for the law to change.”
The conflict arises when people of faith refuse to serve homosexual couples because of their religious beliefs that same-sex marriage is wrong. For example, Kim Davis, a county clerk in the state of Kentucky, refused to issue a marriage license to same-sex couples, and instructed her employees to do the same.
Charges were pressed against Davis, and in September of this year, she was incarcerated.
Religious liberty advocates believe that this was an infringement on their right to religious freedom. Robertson argued that it is not an infringement of religious liberty because Davis was a government employee and she refused to follow the government law in her place of work.
“Citizens have a freedom of conscious,” Robertson said, “But they can’t use that freedom to discriminate against others or pick and choose what laws to follow.”
According to Youman, a possible way religious government officials can avoid this problem is for them to ask someone else in the office to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
“I predict that not too far from now, we will get to a place where we can be equal,” Robertson said. “A place where we strike the right balance, a place where marriage equality and religious liberty coexist.”
izzy806
germansingergirl
tangentwithtanner
prguitarman
andulkaphoto
dededos
discoholicmusic
areudirty
