Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / January 2009

Last November, I wrote about anti-gay-rights people fighting because
they worry that they would be required to hold gay marriages on church
property.  Doug Anderson wrote that this would be fear-mongering, and
that such a concern would be ridiculous.  Mr AllYou! said that this
was "a complete red herring".

Little did any of us know that while we were having that discussion, a
lawsuit on exactly that issue was proceeding in New Jersey.  And, as it
turns out, I was right:

  http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases08/pr20081229a.html

The practical upshot is that the State has investigated and found cause
to persue anti-discrimination charges against a church-run group for
denying a lesbian couple the right to have a commitment ceremony on
church-owned property.

At the time, I asked if it was *totally* ridiculous to suppose that a
church which didn't have serious policies about only allowing members
to use their property might get sued under "public accomodation" rules.
Mr Anderson replied:

Well, not only isn't it ridiculous *at all*, but that red herring of a
lawsuit was filed in 2007 and has been percolating along ever since.

Also, at the time, I noted that some church group might find themselves
on the wrong side of a public accomodation law, and then have to change
their policies so they are no longer a public accomodation -- but then
they'd have to worry about getting sued for changing their policies.
This was also dismissed as ridiculous.

As it happens, the Camp Meeting Association *did* change their policies
so they will no longer be regarded as a "public accomodation".  A second
case involving the same pavilion, filed by another lesbian couple, was
*not* considered a violation by the Division on Civil Rights, because
of the policy change.  However, as reported by the Associated Press,
the couple's lawyer is not willing to accept the policy change:

 "What this case has always been about from my clients' perspective
 has been equality," said Larry Lustberg, the lawyer for the couple.
 He said they will seek an order that requires the pavilion to be
 "open to all on an equal basis."

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jTXKISkpV7GOQ06_flqtI63zFL4AD9
5CLCTO0

So: this lawyer is of the opinion that a church group no longer has any
right to say who can or can't use their property.  Even though they have
changed their policies so the pavilion is no longer considered a "public
accomodation", he's going to seek a court order overriding that policy.

In other words, a gay couple sued a church group because they liked the
fancy property using a public accomodation law, exactly as I said might
happen.  When the church group changed their policy, the new policy got
rolled into the lawsuit, exactly as I said might happen.

Both things were described as ridiculous, *even though they were already
going on while we were having the dicussion*.

In fairness, my correspondents were correct on one point: all this
happened without the word "marriage" being involved.  This came up
in the context of my contention that gay people could get equal rights
faster if they gave up on the word "marriage", which gets lots of
people uptight.  Some worry that they would be forced to host gay
weddings on church property, I said, and even if they won it would
cost a fortune to deal with the lawsuit.

But that was a ridiculous red herring, or so Mr Anderson and Mr AllYou!
seemed to think.  Mr AllYou! even boasted: "I've spent a lot of time on
the front lines of the sexual orientation debate, and for all of the
'anti-gay' arguments I ever heard, not one of them was that."  Maybe
next time he's out on the front lines he should pay closer attention.

Remember, now, that I think gay people should be equal in the eyes of
the law, I just disagreed with the others about how they should achieve
that goal.  Suing your way to your goal isn't the best solution.  I noted
that backlash is a serious problem, and shouldn't be provoked.

This too was dismissed.  But given how poorly my correspondents seem to
be at predicting what might happen, and how exactly correct I was, who
here wants to gamble that they were right, and that no backlash is
going to happen?

Anybody want to take a guess how often anti-gay-rights people are going
to cite this ruling in their letters asking for money and trying to get
out the vote?  Anybody want to guess which group of voters is more
likely to be energized by a case like this and work like crazy to get
their candidates in office appointing judges who'll rule the other
way?

I've seen it persuasively argued that in 2004, worry about gay marriage
got us four more years of George W Bush.  Are we all happy with that,
and consider it a good trade?  Are we all going to be happy with what
worry about gay marriage gets us in 2010/2012?

*

I note, incidentally, that GayCityNews writes as follows:

  [T]he association's decision to get out of the wedding rental
  business entirely means that the conclusion of this case will not
  be an order to open up the pavilion for civil union ceremonies.
  However, since the association has now lost its public accommodations
  tax exemption and its rental income, it might conclude that it should
  accommodate changing reality in New Jersey by offering the space on an
  equal basis for both weddings and civil union ceremonies.

      http://www.gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20231434&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_i
d=568864&rfi=6

This would be from the "God as a Hobby" school of thought.  "Surely you
should change your religion to a more convenient one; all that stuff
you've believed for centuries isn't really important, is it?"

My guess is that the church would abandon the property before they'll
return it to a public accomodation, regardless of cost.  But that's what
lots of people -- Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, for two
examples -- would want.  Churches shouldn't exist at all, in their view,
and so taking away their right to control their property would be a fine
idea.

Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably.
Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill
people for believing them.  This may seem an extraordinary claim, but
it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we
live." -- Sam Harris, _The End of Faith_