Separation Of Church And State Should Work Both Ways
The battle between gay rights supporters and defenders of traditional marriage took a bizarre twist this week. The New Jersey State Division On Civil Rights ruled that a lesbian couple could proceed with their discrimination complaint against the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, for refusing to allow the couple to hold a civil union ceremony in their seaside pavilion.
Ocean Grove is a religious retreat founded by a group of New Jersey Methodists in 1869. The Camp Meeting Association owns approximately 1 square mile of land in Neptune Township that includes the ocean front pavilion. Over the years the facility has been used for religious services, along with a variety of other events such as weddings, plays and musical performances.
When a lesbian couple applied for the use of the pavilion to hold a civil union ceremony in 2007, the association turned down their request on the grounds that the union violated their religious beliefs. The State ruled that as long as the association makes the pavilion available for weddings, it must be available to same-sex couples. Rather than allowing civil unions to take place, the association has responded by stating that it will no longer make the facility available for anyone.
Given the myriad possible locations for an ocean front wedding, it seems likely that this complaint was specifically designed to call attention to the cause of same-sex marriage. While I wholeheartedly support the idea that homosexual couples should enjoy the legal benefits of marriage, I find it hard to sympathize when they insist on trampling the rights of others in the process. Just as the same-sex couples should have the right to have their unions recognized, so to should a religious organization have the right to use their facilities in a way that is consistent with their beliefs.
What activists on both sides of the issue fail to recognize is that marriage is in fact two separate institutions with two very different meanings. From the traditionalist point of view, marriage is a religious institution, and no court order or constitutional amendment can ever alter that fact. As our society becomes more tolerant, progressive churches will gradually accept the notion of gay marriage, and those more bound by traditional beliefs will not. Both groups will be well within their rights to address the issue as they see fit, and individual members will be free to seek out congregations that best represent their personal values and beliefs.
Just as the church has no constitutional right to impose its will on the people, the government has no right to impose its will on the church. By attempting to force a religious organization to sanction civil unions, New Jersey has clearly overstepped the boundary between Church and State. While I do not agree with those who oppose same-sex marriage on purely religious grounds, I must support their right to do so in the context of marriage as a religious institution.
The larger debate over same-sex unions is not about religion; rather it centers on marriage as a civil institution, and the corresponding legal rights and responsibilities that come along with that commitment. While religious organizations should remain free to act in accordance with their convictions, governments should not discriminate by granting or withholding legal rights on the basis of sexual orientation. Still, we have laws in many states that prevent lifelong partners from making medical decisions for one another, bequeathing their estates, or even visiting each other in the hospital. Only the most blatantly bigoted individuals would agree that these restrictions should continue to bear the force of law.
In many respects, I am a steadfast traditionalist, but I fail to see how a same-sex couple seeking legal recognition of their long-term relationship can in any way lessen the significance of my marriage. The real threats to traditional marriage in this country are not homosexuality, but our high divorce rate, our willingness to accept cohabitation as a socially acceptable alternative, and the staggering number of children born out of wedlock. Traditional marriage has been on the decline for over 40 years. Granting equal access to the legal benefits of marriage for same-sex couples will not hasten its demise.
While there is no question that same-sex couples should be afforded the legal benefits of marriage, the government will never be able to grant them the right to be married in a church. Unless the activists on both sides of the battle recognize the boundaries between the religious and civil aspects of marriage, the real threat will be to our liberties.
Excellent article, very complicated issue, particularly in this instance. But yes, the door of separation of church and state does swing both ways, and was arguably meant more by Jefferson and some of the founders to keep the state out of religion than the religion out of the state.
The only thing is, Ocean Grove is a town. I’m from there. I once lived right next door in Bradley Beach. One square mile sounds small, but in Jersey, that means many thousands of people and hundreds, maybe even thousands, of residences. People of any religion can live there, work there or party there. You can’t tell where Ocean Grove starts and Bradley Beach ends. Just trying to help you understand that it’s not like some gay people crashing the local church. Some people don’t even know that the area was started by religious people. Also, the pavillion is a popular spot to get married and just because they’re gay, doesn’t mean they are out to prove a point. Gay people are so common up there, I bet it didn’t even occur to them.
But I do see the church’s point. However, they’re just going to have to start acting like a church if they intend to discriminate against certain people.
http://www.GreenerPastures–ACityGirlGoesCountry.blogspot.com
Debi,
Thanks for the clarification. This is a very difficult question, and I guess I just find it hard to believe that anyone would take legal action in a case like this unless they were trying to prove a point. The thing that bothers me is that with all of the recent concern for the rights of minorities, we seem to have thrown the concept of freedom of association out the window. This is exactly like forcing the Boy Scouts to accept gay scoutmasters. I have never belonged to a church or to the Boy Scouts, but I support their right to establish membership rules based on their beliefs.