Churches with a view that the Bible allows weddings only between one man and one woman will be protected by the First Amendment’s right to religious freedom in the event that Hawaii enacts a bill allowing same-sex marriages. Such a law should not be cluttered by exemptions for the churches’ for-profit enterprises. Those must adhere to the public accommodations law.
Any entities, including churches, should not be allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples in this way. Instead, they should prepare to make changes in accordance with the times.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had defined marriage as between a man and a woman, calling it unconstitutional. A few of the 13 states and the District of Columbia that have legalized same-sex marriage have approved specific religious exemptions related to housing and pre-marital counseling.
For Hawaii to approve such exemptions would be a step backward. Five years ago, the University of Hawaii settled a discrimination lawsuit by a gay couple who said they were denied family housing with a settlement to include same-sex couples. UH revised its policy to include same-sex couples in family housing.
Several churches in Hawaii allow couples that are not members to use some facilities to commemorate their wedding vows. Such commercial activity clearly should fall under the state’s public accommodations law, which prohibits discrimination.
Even as state House Democrats prepare to meet Wednesday about a potential special session on gay marriage, it’s clear that the Legislature wants to ensure that any marriage-equality proposal include protections for clergy and religious institutions. But such religious-freedom protections already exist, as crafted into Hawaii’s existing civil unions law. And the gay-marriage bill draft now at the state Capitol goes even further in stating clearly that the clergy and others have a constitutional right to refuse to perform gay marriages.
Indeed, marriage-equality advocates are right in saying that the public accommodations law offers little room for lawmakers to go much beyond a limited exemption for churches. A balance must be struck.
"I think there’s a real risk that we will overreach and set up the other side as the victim if we decide we have to stamp out every instance of religious-based anti-gay discrimination," gay-rights advocate Jonathan Rauch, senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, told The Associated Press. "I also think that there’s a moral reason. What the gay rights movement is fighting for is not just equality for gays but freedom of conscience to live openly according to their identity. I don’t think we should be in the business of being as intolerant of others as they were to us."
Last week, some 30 religious leaders here declared their support for marriage equality; today, that number urging lawmakers and the governor to approve marriage for same-sex couples is at 52 and growing, say Hawaii United for Marriage, a statewide coalition of religious congregations, businesses, labor unions and community organizations.
At this point, while wedding industry businesses have been sued, attorneys following the issue say they don’t know of any lawsuits against churches on this issue nationwide. Meanwhile, the issue of allowing equal rights of marriage to all must move forward — and churches in Hawaii should be among those preparing to adapt to this societal change.
