Written by Don Byrd
Today, a federal judge in Kentucky ruled unconstitutional the state’s amendment barring recognition of same-sex marriages conducted in other states that allow them. Equal Protection guarantees in the U.S. Constitution, he said, forbid such laws that deny benefits to an entire class of people when no rational reason exists to do so.
The plaintiffs argued the laws are also invalid because they improperly impose a religious view of marriage in violation of the separation of church and state. The judge did not address that argument, and did not need to, since he found it invalid on Equal Protection grounds.
So why include mention of this decision in a church-state blog, when the judge declined to comment on the church-state argument? Because he concluded his opinion with some interesting observations and explanations, aimed at those Kentuckians who feel that such a ruling – essentially requiring the state to recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states – is an affront to their own religious beliefs.
Here is snippet:
Many Kentuckians believe in “traditional marriage.” Many believe what their ministers and scriptures tell them: that a marriage is a sacrament instituted between God and a man and a woman for society’s benefit. They may be confused — even angry — when a decision such as this one seems to call into question that view. These concerns are understandable and deserve an answer.
Our religious beliefs and societal traditions are vital to the fabric of society. Though each faith, minister, and individual can define marriage for themselves, at issue here are laws that act outside that protected sphere. Once the government defines marriage and attaches benefits to that definition, it must do so constitutionally. It cannot impose a traditional or faith-based limitation upon a public right without a sufficient justification for it. Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law, does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons.
The beauty of our Constitution is that it accommodates our individual faith’s definition of marriage while preventing the government from unlawfully treating us differently. This is hardly surprising since it was written by people who came to America to find both freedom of religion and freedom from it.
Many others may wonder about the future of marriages generally and the right of a religion or an individual church to set its own rules governing it. For instance…[m]ust churches now marry same-sex couples?
…
[N]o court can require churches or other religious institutions to marry same-sex couples or any other couple, for that matter. This is part of our constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. That decision will always be based on religious doctrine.
