Written by Don Byrd
[UPDATE 4/30: The Texas Senate suspended the rules to introduce SB 2065, a companion measure to HB 3567 discussed below. The bill has been referred to the State Affairs Committee.]
In Texas this week, the House State Affairs Committee conducted hearings and debates over HB 3567, a bill that exempts clergy, as well as religious organizations and their employees, from having to solemnize, or otherwise provide services for, marriage ceremonies they object to on religious grounds. Proponents argue the bill is necessary to protect the religious freedom of ministers and religious organizations. Opponents counter that the bill is unnecessary in light of First Amendment protections, and that it may lead to harmful, unintended consequences.
The Baptist Standard’s Ken Camp reports on the testimony of Gus Reyes, director of Texas Baptists’ Christian Life Commission:
Reyes . . . testified in support of HB 3567, emphasizing Baptists’ historic support for religious liberty for all people and belief in the soul competency of each individual.
“We believe in freedom of conscience—that all people are competent to determine what they believe about ultimate reality,” Reyes said. “In other words, God gives people the ability to make choices about what they believe.”
…
“True religious freedom is not needed much by those who hold views supported by the majority of people. Religious freedom is needed most by those who hold views that are in the minority.”
The Texas Freedom Network (TFN) and the ACLU of Texas both support protecting clergy from having to perform objectionable marriage ceremonies (see TFN’s proposal here), but oppose HB 3567, arguing that it enables discrimination and undermines laws meant to protect Texans’ civil rights.
Meanwhile, the Oklahoma legislature this week passed two measures that likewise purport to exempt clergy as well as judges from any requirement to participate in marriage ceremonies they deem religiously objectionable. Tulsa World describes the measures – SB 788 and HB 1007 – as “largely symbolic” because “religious and secular officials already have the right to refuse to perform marriages.” The bills have been sent to the Governor for his signature.
