There are few issues that cause church leaders more concern than the implications of gay rights upon religious liberty. From courtrooms to family rooms, our society is debating these questions and the outcomes are having significant ramifications on how pastors teach, lead, and counsel. To help us better understand the debate, I have invited Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, to write a series of articles to identify where conservative and liberal Christians can find common ground on these matters, and where we still disagree. Robinson is now retired from ministry and working with the Center for American Progress, a progressive research and policy organization, on issues of faith and gay rights. -Skye Jethani
Religious liberty is a hot topic these days, cited in discussions and debates about access to the institution of marriage by gay and lesbian couples. Such an expansion of marriage to include gay couples is often seen by some religious conservatives as an infringement on the religious liberty of believers, concerns which are sometimes not taken seriously by religious liberals.
That being said, let's be clear that religious liberals also hold religious liberty as a treasured and historical value. It just may be that we mean different things by "religious liberty," and therefore may disagree about whether it is under attack. But first, some common ground.
Should marriage equality become the law of the land, one thing that religious conservatives and liberals can agree on is that religious institutions will still be able to refuse to authorize, bless or in any way support same-gender marriage. My own home state of New Hampshire was the first to include, in the body of our marriage equality legislation, a restatement of what has always been true under the First Amendment: no religious institution or clergy member will be required to marry same sex couples or to bless/sanction any such civil relationship. As a clergyman, I cannot be forced to marry any couple who comes to me asking to be married, whether gay or straight. I may refuse to marry a couple for any reason, or for no reason. I don't even have to give a reason. And I can't be sued for my refusal.
This right-of-refusal is an important ramification of the separation of church and state. It is an aspect of religious freedom for which I am willing to fight (if it actually were under attack) alongside my conservative brothers and sisters of the faith. Religious exemptions based on the First Amendment provide common ground for religious conservatives and liberals. We stand together in this.
Beyond this, churches/synagogues/mosques have the right to refuse the use of their religious facilities for the solemnization of same sex unions. Again, there is common ground here. There is no standing or proposed right to force a house of worship to allow the marriage of a same sex couple (or any other rite or liturgy contrary to its teachings) in its sacred space. I would oppose any change in existing law that proposed this because it would be an infringement on religious liberty.
In conversations with a number of religious conservatives, I have heard articulated the fear that those who support the expansion of marriage equality to include same-gender couples might want to force other religious people, clergy and institutions to adhere to that change. I'm sure you could find some individuals who would advocate such coercion, but they are outside the mainstream of those who work for marriage equality.
As Bishop of an Episcopal diocese, I had a number of my clergy who opposed including gay/lesbian couples in the state's definition of marriage and who were religiously opposed to blessing such a union in the name of the Church. They had my full support. I was clear from the beginning that although I, as their Bishop, supported this change in secular law, and indeed intended to avail myself of the opportunity to be married in the eyes of the State, they would suffer no consequences for being opposed. Indeed, I openly and publicly supported their right to refuse to participate in such unions – and sometimes was the one to explain to a gay couple seeking such a union their right to decline.
Forced marches seldom win converts, and I owed that kind of support to my conservative clergy. If I am willing to protect the conservative clergy in my own diocese and denomination, why would I seek to impose such a coercive burden on other clergy or denominations?
Moreover, it would be a sad commentary on Christianity if fellow Christians were willing to write one another off because of a difference of opinion on one issue that faces us. One priest in my diocese openly opposed my nomination for bishop because I was a gay man in a long-term relationship. The media loved to interview him in the run-up to the election to demonstrate the tension around this issue in my diocese. This clergyman would tell you, I think, that during the ten years of my episcopate, I supported him fully and enthusiastically in his ministry both publicly and privately. When he got into some difficulty with his congregation, I walked with him every step of the way as his bishop and brother in Christ. I honestly don't know if he ever changed his mind about homosexuality. That was not the point. Loving, Christian community was the point, and I think he would tell you that I had been a good bishop to and for him.
One of the greatest learnings for me over the last decade has been that we have so, so much in common, even though our views on various issues may differ. I think it must break God's heart to see us cast aside all that we hold in common, and instead focus on that which divides us.
Still, there are issues that divide us, and they do require our attention as well. In part 2 of this consideration of religious liberty, I will seek to clarify where I think we do part ways in how religious people/institutions are permitted to discriminate, based on their religious freedom.
