Churches Seek Shelter from Supreme Court Definition of Marriage

Worried they could be sued by gay couples, some churches are changing their bylaws to reflect their view that the Bible allows only marriage between one man and one woman. Some churches fear that it's only a matter of time before one of them is sued by a gay couple that asks to be married in a church they have attended and are refused because the church believes as a matter of faith that Christian marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples. AP cites some examples : "I thought marriage was always between one man and one woman, but the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision said no," said Gregory S. Erwin, an attorney for the Louisiana Baptist Convention, an association of Southern Baptist churches and one several groups advising churches to change their bylaws. "I think it's better to be prepared because the law is changing. America is changing." Erwin was referring to the June Supreme Court decision in which the Court struck down a definition in a federal law that states that marriage must be between a man and a woman to qualify for certain federal benefits. The decision refers only to the federal government. And, in California, Kevin Snider, an attorney with the Pacific Justice Institute, a nonprofit legal defense group that specializes in conservative Christian issues, said his organization released a model marriage policy a few years ago in response to a statewide gay marriage fight in California. Snider said some religious leaders have been threatened with lawsuits for declining to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. ~~~~~ The US Constitution is very clear about keeping the government out of religion : "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (United States Constitution, Amendment I, 1791; see also Article VI.). This prohibition of governmental meddling in the personal freedom of religion has been widely upheld as such. BUT, and it is a big "but," the Supreme Court has often interferred in the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution as a matter of equal rights for minorities. The Fourteenth Amendment has been read by the Supreme Court to prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion : "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." It is the Fourteenth Amendment that has been the basis for long list of cases that include halting the reading of the Bible or mandatory prayer in public schools and eliminating Christmas creches in public buildings, There was such a public and congressional outcry when the Court seemed poised to eliminate the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance to the national flag that the Court found a procedural reason to settle the case without tossing out the words "under God." But the Court cases embrace more than Christian beliefs -- the Court has eliminated polygamy, protected Native American religious ceremonies, and forced education and minimum life-saving medical intervention for children, all under the Fourteenth Amendment and a broad constitutional principle articulated over and over by the Founders - separation of church and state. ~~~~~ So, dear readers, it may be wise for Christian churches that believe as a matter of faith that marriage may only be undertaken between a man and a woman to spell it out now. It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court would force a church to perform a ceremony that relates to a civil right not recognized by the particular church, i.e., performing religious marriage ceremonies for gay couples. But, it might be safer to act now. If such a case were upheld, it would be harder to seek written shelter after the fact.