Religious Right leaders have consistently tried to build opposition to marriage equality by portraying marriage equality and religious liberty as incompatible. People For the American Way Foundation’s recent Right Wing Watch In Focus report documented the deceptive ways that Religious Right leaders blur the distinction between civil and religious marriage.
There’s power to the religious liberty argument—on the marriage equality side, that is. Two polls, one conducted by PFAWF in 2006 and one by Public Religion Research in 2008, show that, when Americans who don’t initially support allowing same-sex couples to get married are asked a followup—“If the law guaranteed that no church or congregation would be required to perform marriages for same-sex couples, I would support allowing gay couples to legally marry,” support for marriage equality jumps a remarkable 12 to 14 percent. There’s a lot of public support to be gained by debunking the Religious Right on this front.
That’s why it was especially gratifying that the Iowa Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling devoted considerable space to dealing respectfully with religious objections to same-sex marriage and explaining clearly why religious beliefs about marriage cannot override the constitutional principle of equality when it comes to civil marriage. Here’s the concluding portion of the Court’s section on religion:
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.
