Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Family Law Blogs -> Independent Gay Forum

Family Law

: Independent Gay Forum

It's a Wall, Not a Tunnel

pstrongby Ryan Seals/strongbr /emFirst published in the Emory University bWheel/b on November 10, 2008/embr //p pOn Oct. 7, 1801, Nehemiah Dodge signed a letter on behalf of himself and his fellow Baptist parishioners from Danbury, Conn. In it, they congratulated the newly elected Thomas Jefferson on his victory and urged him to uphold a policy of governmental non-interference in private religious matters. In Jeffersonrsquo;s response to the Danbury Baptists, he assured them that he personally interpreted the First Amendment as building ldquo;a wall of separation between Church amp; State.rdquo; And that letter, of course, is the origin of that famously worded principle./p pNow, it would be foolish to think that this Nov. 4 was the first time in over 207 years that Jeffersonrsquo;s letter and intent was ignored, disregarded or willfully turned on its head. America, after all, is a Western democracy in which the secular and sacred mix and mingle to an almost ridiculous degree. Irsquo;m not ecstatic about exercising my most fundamental democratic right mdash; the right to vote mdash; in a church. Or about taking the SAT with a bloody crucifix gazing down upon me. Divine inspiration, indeed./p pBut this past Tuesday, Californians voted in favor of Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment revoking marriage equality from gay and lesbian couples. It passed thanks, in no small part, to the efforts of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, also known as the Mormons. When I say ldquo;no small part,rdquo; I actually mean that LDS church members donated an estimated 77 percent of the funding for lsquo;Yes on 8rsquo; groups. LDS churches around the country read out a letter in June from the church leadership encouraging members to ldquo;do all you can dordquo; in support of the amendment. The church itself made a $2,078.97 donation to cover the travel costs of several church leaders traveling to California for a lsquo;Yes on 8rsquo; meeting./p pThe tragicomic aspect of this is that the Mormon church was likely doing this, in part, to increase its evangelical bona fides in the larger religious community. The less-than-eager reception to Mormon Mitt Romneyrsquo;s presidential candidacy apparently spurred a rivalry with gay couples in California the unfortunate bystanders: anyone you can condemn, I can condemn better!/p pThis issue would stay in the realm of social movement and future litigation if it were not for that peculiar characteristic of American religious organizations: tax-free status. In an effort to buttress Jeffersonrsquo;s wall, we have decided that the government has no place collecting money from organizations with a religious purpose (or, for that matter, charitable, scientific, ldquo;testing for public safety,rdquo; literary or educational purposes)./p pThe law governing tax-free status is appropriately accompanied by the concomitant responsibility that those organizations not engage in activities including ldquo;carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation.rdquo; The wall, as it were, is barbed on both sides./p pMormon leaders have already put out statements denying any coercion or coordinated policy in encouraging church members to donate time or money. The donation from the church to send leaders to a California meeting seems to belie that claim, as do accounts of church membersrsquo; souls and eternal salvation being threatened if they did not donate. If our measuring stick is explicit and centrally coordinated encouragement, itrsquo;s not likely that wersquo;ll find any smoking gun. But the weight of evidence suggests a systematic effort by the LDS church to influence the amendment./p pReligions these days would have you believe that these are in fact impingements on the free exercise of faith, arguing, for example, that being ldquo;forcedrdquo; to recognize gay marriage is a violation of the First Amendment. That argument is as old, pernicious and outright stupid as those against teaching evolution or against interracial marriage. Using that metric, everything is potentially religious, because all laws include some aspect of ldquo;societal recognitionrdquo; of some right or principle./p pIn reality, of course, no Mormon church, nor any other church, would be forced to officiate a same-sex marriage. And for the record, the line of gays beating down the door to become Mormon is rather short (and, I would venture to guess, rather self-loathing)./p pThe First Amendment really is our most important constitutional principle; without it, we lose the ability to debate everything else and exercise free thought. And that includes the free exercise of religion. But when religions renege on their side of the bargain, we need to hold them to task. I urge you to find any of a number of websites that show you how to file an IRS complaint easily. This isnrsquo;t about dictating belief or governmental interference mdash; this is about making sure that Jeffersonrsquo;s wall stays strong and keeps on separating, in both directions./p

Full post as published by Independent Gay Forum on November 10, 2008 (boomark / email).