It is fair to say that the legalization of gay
marriage is one event in American history that will leave a lasting mark on our
national identity. The movement for this right took decades of fighting
from a segment of the population that has historically been labeled as deviant
and obscene. That fighting, over time, led to societal acceptance.
The groundbreaking ruling in Obergfell vs. Hodges made tangible what
previously, couldn't have even been dreamed of by many.
Specifically, in the state of Mississippi, the "Protecting
Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Law" was
created to allow people employed by the state to authorize marriage
certificates to refuse certificates to gay couples on religious grounds.
The law states that marriage clerks must "take all necessary steps to ensure that the authorization and licensing of any legally valid marriage is not impeded or delayed as a result of any recusal."
The makers of the law believe that state employees should be allowed to refuse authorization as such authorization goes against their belief in the sanctity of marriage.
Critics, however, believe that this law opens the door to sexuality based discrimination. Nationwide, advocacy groups have been rallying to contest the law.
A case was brought against the state of Mississippi by an advocacy group called "Campaign for Southern Equality" in the case: "Campaign for Southern Equality vs. Bryant."
Originally the case was heard by a U.S. district judge who ruled against the law but last year, a three member judge panel for the U.S. fifth circuit of appeals ruled that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how they have or will be affected by the law. This overturned ruling allowed the law to take effect in October. Essentially, the court ruled "no harm, no foul."
Recently, the supreme court declined two cases brought against the law on the same grounds.
Although the law currently stands, the ruling in the court of appeals laid groundwork for similar cases in the future.
This ruling leaves us with a question that will most probably be asked again in the near future: "does the requirement for government officials to validate gay marriage certificates violate their first amendment right to free exercise?"
I believe that it doesn't.
Although the
ruling was made over one hundred years ago, I believe that case can be
connected to Reynolds vs. U.S. In the case, the Supreme Court ruled that
Reynolds, a mormon, didn't have his constitutional right to free exercise
violated by a law that prevented him from engaging in polygamy. The main
argument presented by the majority opinion was that the state had a compelling
interest not to allow polygamy. In short, the court ruled that the law was made
to protect the public and was crucial that it let stand for the morality of the
society at large.
Although the
specifics of the case aren't necessarily pertinent, the idea that a state's
compelling interest can outweigh the religious practices of a sect are.
In response
to the section of the law that requires clerks to "ensure that the licensing of any legally valid marriage is not impeded or delayed as a
result of any recusal," I believe that it's simply not viable in practice
nor is it enforceable. What if there's only one person legally authorized
to give marriage certificates for hundreds of miles and they claim religious
immunity? Additionally, how could the state make sure that NO marriage
certificate is held up due to the personal refusals of government
officials. That kind of standard would be difficult, if not impossible to
uphold.
8 comments:
I agree with Sean as a government employee should separate their church values away from the motive of the state. Justice Gorsuch argued in oral arguments in Masterpiece that opening the door for people like Jack Phillips would lead many institutions to engage in discrimination based on sexual orientation, but the last place the people should see discrimination is through the state. Obergefell is undoubtedly considered a constitutional controversy but unless it gets overturned state employees should not be imposing their beliefs on people who wish to exercise their right to get married.
I do not believe that the government employees have a valid argument that their rights are being impeded upon. They are signing the certificates as actors of the state, and should not be acting on their own personal agendas or beliefs. A marriage certificate is a government document, and gay marriage has been deemed acceptable by that said government. To not supply a gay couple with a license for marriage based on their sexuality is indeed discrimination.
I agree that the government employee should not be acting on their own personal beliefs, and in doing so they would be discriminating based on sexual orientation. It has been ruled that same sex marriage is legal, and so regardless of personal beliefs, religious or moral, as agents of the state these employees need to neutrally allow couples marriage licenses. Allowing them to deny marriage licenses is like giving them the power of deeming who should be allowed to get married. It could also place an undue burden on these couples, as Sean said, if there is nowhere else around to obtain a marriage license besides the place that is denying couples based on sexual orientation on religious grounds.
I agree with Sean and I think that government employees are allowed to have their own beliefs, but while they are working they should not be allowed to follow their own agenda. Since gay marriage has been legalized on a federal level, all government employees should abide by the state’s interest in marriage equality. I think that if state actors were allowed the choice to only serve certain individuals and not others, this would of course lead to a slippery slope.
While I can contemplate a private objection to serving someone that would violate their religious beliefs (although ultimately I would go against their onions as the State can regulate practices), A government official not exercising the policy of the government is unacceptable and establishes the workers religion over others. That being said the issuing of marriage licenses is a secular administrative action that is regulated by the state, however after the Obergefell v. Hodges case the federal government took precedent over the states right and enforced the rights of same-sex couples to marry.
I agree with Sean and the prior comments stating that the government officials should be required to fulfill the full duties outlined within their jobs and that would include authorizing marriage certificates regardless of religious belief. I agree that the individual employees of the state have the right to their freedom of religion, of course, however there are certain times where they should not let their religion be more important than their jobs. If the government were to allow every person to practice their beliefs and not follow the government agenda, then the separation of state and church would become muddled and it would result in a slippery slope.
I think that this is an interesting case because based on my first assumption I would say that the employees should be allowed to decline to issue the marriage certificate if it goes directly against their religion as long as there was a replacement who could fill it out and not delay the process. But when compared to the Renoylds case I lean towards the side of this is in the public sphere and the Government should be able to require this of them.
I'd like to echo Abby's sentiments. When a government employee is working, they are acting as representatives for the government. As a result they cannot adopt a stance in their work which would imply the government as adopted some form of religious belief. In many of the education cases we have examined, the SCOTUS has expressed concern over teachers receiving governments funds using the classroom to espouse their personal religious views. In essence, it is unconstitutional for teachers to use their government position to further their religious beliefs. This sets enough legal precedent to indicate all government employees must not use their positions to advance their own religious beliefs. As a result, the law cannot stand. If an employee of the government refuses to work in manner which reflects constitutional values, then they can find a new job in the private sector.
Post a Comment