Commentary; Posted: 5/12/04

Gay marriage a threat to civil, religious liberties

Sen. Michele Bachmann
Guest Columnist

We are engaged in the defining political debate of our time; that is, whether marriage should be redefined to include same-sex couples or other alternatives. Everything from morality, legal benefits, the impact on children, public schools, government and private businesses have been discussed in the media. Incredibly, almost no attention has been focused on the very real threats to our civil and religious liberties.

Specifically, the 501(c)(3) tax exempt status, given to thousands of churches, nursing homes, schools, ministries, universities and radio stations may be at risk if an organization ìdiscriminatesî against a legally protected status, such as same-sex marriage.

What does this mean? If gay marriage is legalized, then any church or religious organization that doesnít agree with same-sex marriage will likely come under intense pressure to either change their views or go silent. Tax-exempt status for faith-based organizations that fail to agree with same-sex marriage will be at risk.

That is already happening in Canada. Recently, judges imposed same-sex marriage in three Canadian Provinces. On April 29, 2004 a law that many say will term the Bible ëhate speechí was signed into law. The law will criminalize public expression against homosexual behavior with a penalty of up to five years in prison. Opponents call this a ìdangerous lawî that muzzles free speech and have christened it Canadaís ìchill bill.î

John Leo, columnist for US News and World Report wrote on April 19, 2004: ìThe Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ruled that a newspaper ad listing biblical passages that oppose homosexuality was a human rights offense. The commission ordered the paper and Hugh Owens, the man who placed the ad, to pay $1,500 each to three gay men who objected to it.î

ìIn another case, a British Columbia court upheld the one-month suspension, without pay, of a high school teacher who wrote letters to a local paper arguing homosexuality is not a fixed orientation but a condition that can and should be treated. The teacher, Chris Kempling, was not accused of discrimination, merely of expressing thoughts that the state defines as improper.î

ìIn Ireland last August, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties warned that clergy who circulated a Vatican statement opposing gay marriage could face prosecution under incitement-to-hatred legislation.î

A court in England ruled in January 2004 that a preacher who held up a sign in a town square calling for an end to homosexuality, lesbianism and immorality was ìproperly convictedî of a criminal offense.

The newly elected socialist prime minister of Spain said, ìWe are going to present a bill to set gay unions on the same footing as marriage Ö it will have the same legal effect [as marriage].î

What is incredible is the speed at which our culture has moved on this issue. Only one year ago no major political figure, from either party, would have publicly embraced same-sex marriage ñ that was viewed as political suicide. Neither the media nor the mainstream press was pushing gay marriage. So, what happened?

June 2003, the US Supreme Court released Lawrence v. Texas which held that states could not outlaw sodomy. Justice Scalia in his dissent wrote, almost prophetically, that Lawrence could lead to gay marriage. The Courtís majority dismissed Scaliaís concerns as overreaching scare tactics. Five months later, Scalia, to his dismay, was proven right when the Goodridge decision ordered the Massachusetts Legislature to legalize gay marriage by May 17, 2004.

Six legal scholars wrote of Massachusettsí effort to equate civil unions with man/woman marriage, ìchurches and other religious organizations that fail to embrace civil unions as indistinct from marriage may be forced to retreat from their practices, or else face enormous legal pressure to change their views. Precedent from our own history and that of other nations suggests that religious institutions could even be at risk of losing tax-exempt status, academic accreditation, and media licenses, and could face charges of violating human rights codes or hate speech laws.î (Institute for Marriage and Public Policy)

How could this happen? A 1982 US Supreme Court decision said ìAn institution seeking tax exempt status must serve a public purpose and not be contrary to established public policy. To warrant exemption under 501(c)(3), an institution must fall within a category specified in that section and must demonstrably serve and be in harmony with the public interest.î (Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 US 574 (1982))

We have a window of opportunity here in Minnesota to act before May 17th. On that day, the Minnesota Constitution requires that the Legislature adjourn its business, ironically the same day that same-sex marriage will be legalized in Massachusetts, for the first time in the history of our nation.

I am the Senate author of SF 2715, the Constitutional Amendment allowing the people to vote on marriage. This bill, authored by Rep. Mary Liz Holberg, passed overwhelmingly 88-42 in the Minnesota House of Representatives on a bi-partisan vote. Gov. Pawlenty supports this bill.

Now the challenge is in the Minnesota State Senate. All we need is to impact the Senators of our state and ask them to pass SF 2715, unamended, so that millions of Minnesotans, rather than one judge or 201 legislators, can decide the definition of marriage at the ballot box in November.

With the experience of other nations as a guide, we have our civil liberties to lose and little to gain by doing nothing. Our counterparts in Sweden, England and Canada are giving us a glimpse into our future if we fail to act.

The Senators need to hear from you today. Call 651-296-0504 to find out who your Senator is. Phone them, write them, ask them to speak in your community in a public forum. Write a letter to the editor calling on your Senator to let the people vote. Nothing less than our civil and religious liberties are at stake! For more information you can visit www.mnmarriage.com. I can be reached at 651-296-4351 should you have any questions.

The writer is state senator from District 52 and represents the Forest Lake area.

Top of Page