What you said about same-sex marriage

I got mostly positive feedback about Wednesday's column on the anniversary of Varnum v. Brien – readers saying they agreed that same-sex marriage is a move towards fairness and equal rights.

But one reader, who said she'd vote against same-sex marriage if it ever comes to that, took issue with my point that most Iowans' lives haven't changed “one whit” since the Supreme Court struck down a 1998 law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman (Todd Dorman's Thursday column, "A big deal, and no big deal",  goes into depth about this idea).

The reader told me about an Iowa church that decided to stop holding a married couples' retreat on the off chance that a same-sex couple might want to attend. The church doesn't condone same-sex relationships, and before the law they could retreat behind the fact that gay couples weren't married, therefore weren't eligible to participate.

That's changed now that someone else isn't doing the discriminating for them. So, she said, the church decided not to hold the retreat.

“You may or may not agree with this decision but they feel they would be open to a lawsuit if a same sex couple would apply which is against the teachings of our church," the woman wrote. “Hopefully a church can still have its beliefs. “

My first thought was how unfortunate it is that the church would decide no one should reap the benefits of such a retreat because they don't feel comfortable extending the opportunity to everyone. The reader implied that this was the Supreme Court's fault,  but the way I see it, the church was called out by the ruling.

I mean no disrespect when I say I don't have much sympathy for the church, just as I wouldn't for any religious group that used spirituality as an excuse to discriminate against another class or group – to deny women an education, for example. You don't have to like everyone, or agree with what they do, but that's no grounds for treating them unequally under the law.

But then I wondered what the likelihood even was of a couple successfully suing a religious institution that couched discrimination in religious beliefs. So I left a message this morning for Ben Stone, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Iowa.

“That's an unfounded fear,” he said. “They're free to have a marriage program with the type of married people they want to have.”

In fact, he said, it's explicitly outlined in the Varnum opinion, so I looked it up for the first time in a year. I'd forgotten how thoroughly the Supreme Court explored this idea. Here's their conclusion:

“In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage-religious or otherwise-by giving respect to our constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views. A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person's religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution.The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires.”

The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires.”

Pretty unambiguous.

This is a well-established distinction. Religious institutions already are able to make decisions that would otherwise violate civil rights protections – like refusing to ordain women.

The bottom line, from Stone:

“This is not about religions being forced to do anything. Religious freedom is there, it's respected, and there's nothing threatening it in the Varnum decision.”

So you have to wonder where the fear is coming from.