BY MALIA ZIMMERMAN – HONOLULU — A number of people on both sides of the gay marriage debate say the current draft of Senate Bill 1, which would legalize same-sex ceremonies, infringes on religious liberty.
Civil rights attorney Jim Hochberg, who as president of Hawaii Family Advocates is leading the coalition effort to let people vote on the issue, said if Hawaii passes this bill as written, the state will be “among the worst for protecting religious freedom.”
While SB1 protects religious clergy from liability for refusing to solemnize a same sex marriage, the legislation offers no exemption to non-clergy members, such as judges, Hochberg said.
SB1 also fails to protect religious organizations from liability if they decline requests to use their properties for same sex celebrations, Hochberg said, because to qualify for the protection, a church must “not make its facilities or grounds available to the general public for solemnization of any marriage celebration for a profit.”
“How will the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission determine whether the church qualifies? Will a financial audit of the church be necessary?” Hochberg asked. “The language is simply not clear. We do not know. It will ultimately be sorted out by the courts. And that leaves churches vulnerable and at risk.”
Wayne Cordeiro, head of New Hope Oahu, the largest church in the state with 42 branches in Hawaii and 138 around the world, said the lack of this protection in this bill is “unconstitutional” and “forces religious people to violate their own faith.”
“We do not judge them (gay couples) for their lifestyles for that is their chosen decisions, but we do not agree with a law which mandates that we set aside our conscience in order advocate an immoral lifestyle and be forced, under penalty, to service their ceremonies,” Cordeiro said. “This is an easy and understandable compromise our governmental leaders should allow.”
Five noted law professors told Hawaii lawmakers this week they agree SB 1 will infringe on religious liberties, and the bill should be amended.
While the professors expressed support for same-sex marriage, they warned careless or overly aggressive drafting could create a whole new set of problems for the religious liberty of those believers who cannot conscientiously participate in implementing the new regime.
“The gain for human liberty will be severely compromised if same-sex couples now force religious dissenters to violate their conscience in the same way that those dissenters, when they had the power to do so, used to force same-sex couples to hide their sexuality,” the law professors wrote.
The professors said the challenge for any bill is to “equalize civil marriage while preserving religious control over religious marriage”, and they said SB 1 “has not yet accomplished the task.”
“A bill that addresses only solemnization would do less to protect religious liberty than any other state that has enacted same-sex marriage by legislation,” the professors wrote.
One of them, Douglas Laycock of theUniversity of Virginia, told Hawaii Reporter he doesn’t know that any one of the 14 states that have legalized gay marriages has ideal legislation, and there have been last-minute compromises, and last-minute drafting, sometimes with glitches, nearly everywhere.
However, he believes the best provision is in New Hampshire, because it protects religious organizations with respect to solemnizing, celebrating or promoting marriages when doing so would violate their religious tenets.
“This reaches services to the marriage after the wedding, such as marriage counseling and married student housing. Too many states have focused only on the wedding, which misses much of the problem,” said Laycock, who also teaches religious studies at UVA.
Hawaii already has a civil union law, passed in 2010.
As many as 12,000 people on three islands turned out Monday at a five-hour rally to protest the bill. The massive crowd that gathered at the Capitol in Honolulu chanted and waved signs that said “Let the people decide,” and religious and political leaders spoke at the event.
The Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee listened to testimony from supporters and opponents of gay marriage for 12 hours Monday before passing the bill out of committee to the full Senate by a vote of 5-2. The early testimony count was running about 40 percent in support of legalization, and 60 percent in opposition, according to committee chairman Clayton Hee.
The bill is expected to easily pass the Senate on Wednesday, and go to the House on Thursday, where the judiciary and finance committees will hold a hearing.
Should the bill pass the House without changes, Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who called lawmakers into special session specifically for this purpose, will sign it into law.
Reach Malia Zimmerman at Malia@hawaiireporter.com
"the legislation offers no exemption to non-clergy members, such as judges". This is where traditionalists are missing the meaning of public accommodation laws. You cannot create these laws and then have exceptions. If a church is charging for commercial space they are in the public arena. If I follow what these people are suggesting then should we make exceptions if the church does not want to rent to an African American couple or a handicapped couple? When you start creating exceptions then you have a problem. As for judges and non-cleric people, including the treasured cake bakers and photographers, I am happy to start a discussion but there simply cannot be any negotiation on this matter. To deny public accommodation is just wrong. In our society we have a set of commercial laws which need to be followed. If you don't follow those rules then your license to peddle your wares in that community needs to be revoked.
No, these "Traditionalists" have it right. They currently service Weddings and have no problem with the CURRENT definition of Marriage.
They have a moral problem with the PROPOSED definition of marriage, especially as it opens them up to being FORCED into providing services. That's why they're fighting this thing tooth and nail to stop it dead in its tracks. Granting exceptions is a compromise to quell enough of the opposition for this legislation to pass.
BASically churches are protected by the 1st amendment to the constitution – religious freedom. they can do as they please and even throw off church property anyone for any reason
As for eg judges etc America is long past the days when judges decided guilt or innocense of eg black people based on their relgious beleifs that blacks were inferior
Or the paper that i found in my dads paper dated 1945 a job advertisment – Jews and blacks need not apply
Jim Hochberg, president of Hawaii Family Advocates:
"SB1 also fails to protect religious organizations from liability if they decline requests to use their properties for same sex celebrations, because to qualify for the protection, a church must “not make its facilities or grounds available to the general public for solemnization of any marriage celebration for a profit.”
Simply solution: When a church conducts any marriage it posts it non-profit charge to the state and the couple – regardless of who the couple are. When a church gives its non-profit price quote for a marriage, it posts it to the state and the couple – regardless of who the couple are.
Yet more simple: Churches who want to make marriage into a for-profit-making business make all weddings private, for church members only, not open to the public. Then they can charge whatever they want to whoever has to or wants to get married in their church.
A bakery, a florist, a photography studio, a catering service, a limousine service – if they are licensed by the state as a business, they are NOT churches. Plain and simple.
Family is more and more becoming a word for discriminaton and sometimes vile hatred
The family association is a part of the American family association – a vicious anti gay group of whom all one needs to know is they are located in the most racist state in the Union, tupelo Mississippi Racist with a new group to hate
https://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligenc…
Religious colleges with married couples housing? Marriage counselors? Simple again. Those "religious" organization and people work for a church only and only accept students, faculty, clients and others who prove to the "religious" organization they are practicing that "religion" faithfully and fully and do not accept any other way of living, of being.
The "religious" problem is that most adherents are not complying with their religion's doctrine. That's no business of the state to enforce or exempt. That's a "religious problem."
From the article: "Five noted law professors told Hawaii lawmakers this week they agree SB 1 will infringe on religious liberties, and the bill should be amended."
The five preface their "recommendations" with these statements: "It is important to keep in mind that marriage is both a legal relationship and a religious relationship."
No one in Hawaii or any other state has to go to city hall AND then go to a church to marry. The church is optional, never required, for marriage.
"The profound religious significance of marriage means that many religious organizations and individual believers experience marriage equality as reaching deep into a fundamentally religious institution. The challenge for any bill is to equalize civil marriage while preserving religious control over religious marriage."
Now the five "legal experts" say marriage is civil for some, and "religious" for others – that marriage is NOT both a civil AND a religious relationship.
Which is it gentlemen?
Marriage can be civil for some and BOTH religious and civil for others. Someone who is married within a Church can still claim the tax benefits according to secular law.
This article doesn't make rational sense to me. Marriage equality is a separate bill and law from the state's anti-discrimination law, which already exists. Marriage equality has nothing to do with that.
Even the examples that the National Organization for Marriage have either a) been completely about a state's anti-discrimination law, or b) about a "right" that some religious organizations think they have to take public money. There is no such "right."
I totally get the rational argument against not having religious exemptions for anti-discrimination laws; but on the second point about public money, no religious organization is entitled to public funds, much less funds from homosexual individuals, like myself, who don't want to give money to Catholic Charities. I shouldn't be forced by the government to do that.
You can't have it both ways. You can't be at the public trough and want tax money from individuals that don't agree with your religious views or practices and STILL want to discriminate against gay people.
This article doesn't make rational sense to me. Marriage equality is a separate bill and law from the state's anti-discrimination law, which already exists. Marriage equality has nothing to do with that.
Even the examples that the National Organization for Marriage have either a) been completely about a state's anti-discrimination law, or b) about a "right" that some religious organizations think they have to take public money. There is no such "right."
I totally get the rational argument against not having religious exemptions for anti-discrimination laws; but on the second point about public money, no religious organization is entitled to public funds, much less funds from homosexual individuals, like myself, who don't want to give money to Catholic Charities. I shouldn't be forced by the government to do that.
You can't have it both ways. You can't be at the public trough and want tax money from individuals that don't agree with your religious views or practices and STILL want to discriminate against gay people.
Remember this is Abercrumbie & Blake Oshiro responsibility
Hawaii Reporter had quoted earlier;, Ms. Sen Mercado Kim saying some lawmakers will be out of town during the session.
But the governor says he picked a date that was fairly agreed upon"
This was a set up from the start?
they can come back silly person. the date of the vote / debate was well known.
Manoa residents may think twice before re-electing the 2 chicken-cop out lawmakers who "Dissapeared" duing the debates & voting on this sham. WHY? Call them at;
Rep. Isaac W. Choy – 586-8475
Sen. Brian T. Taniguchi – 586-6460
YET these 2 hired '65 mustangs to RIDE in for the Manoa Christmas parade instead of walking 1.1 miles.
LAZY BUMS
Im curious why it was necessary to have a special session of legislation? Also whats the point of of hearing 12 hours of testimonies if the so called "representatives"are just going to pursue there own agenda. The process of how this is being done to me is a bigger issue than the debate on same sex marriage.
Although I wish the legislature would just vote and the battle would be won for equality, they are giving hundreds of people aq chance to speak.
BTW that includes one of the legislaturors for marriage equality who got a death threat. the talibangelicals are on the loose again
When the federal civil rights act was first passed, there were religious exemptions for Mormons and Southern Baptists, among others, allowing them to continue discriminating against black people on the basis that their "holy books" say that blacks are inferior to whites. The heterosupremacist delusion is every bit as evil as the master race delusion. The Mormons stopped discriminating against blacks when President Carter told them that if they didn't stop discriminating, they were going to lose their tax exempt status. Religious anti-gay bigotry is putrid and evil.
WHAT?!!!!!!!
I follow a general rule that if any portion of a statement is incorrect, the entire statement must be taken as False. I'd like for you to cite references of which "Holy books" you are referring of and where in those "Holy Books" they state that blacks are inferior to whites.
Your statement must be taken as anti-religious rhetoric and hate speech if you cannot supply an example.
David Briscoe and George Buck refer to June 9, 1978 as "Black Friday" because this was the day that Mormon leaders announced the death of the anti-black doctrine (see Utah Holiday, July 1978, page 33). Prior to that time blacks of African lineage were not allowed to hold the Priesthood nor go through the temple even though they lived exemplary lives. The Mormon position concerning blacks was clearly stated in a letter written by the First Presidency on July 17, 1947:
"From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel." (Letter from the First Presidency, quoted in Mormonism and the Negro, by John J. Stewart and William E. Berrett, pp.46-47)
Bruce R. McConkie, who now serves as an Apostle in the Mormon Church, wrote the following in a book published in 1958:
Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them…
"Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned…" (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, page 477)
In the July 1978 issue of the Salt Lake City Messenger we pointed out that in the past Mormon leaders have taught that the doctrine could not be changed. President Brigham Young, for instance, emphatically affirmed that blacks could not hold the Priesthood until AFTER the resurrection:
"Cain slew his brother… and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.. ..How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.7, pp. 290-291)
"When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity… he is the last to share the joys of the kingdom of God." (Ibid., Vol. 2, page 143)
The First Presidency of the Church reaffirmed Brigham Young's teaching in 1949 (see Mormonism and the Negro, Part 2, p. 16), and in 1967, N. Eldon Tanner, was quoted as saying:
"'The church has no intention of changing its doctrine on the Negro,' N. Eldon Tanner, counselor to the First President told SEATTLE during his recent visit here. 'Throughout the history of the original Christian church, the Negro never held the priesthood. There's really nothing we can do to change this. It's a law of God.'" (Seattle Magazine, December 1967, p. 60)
Wonder if Mufi H. would reply as he's Mormon? Scott, go to his site mufihannemann.com
All of his promises, poll results, and speeches are still there, as if he's still running for senate.
hate speech from eg the bible that justified slavery. eg a slave must obey his master
Sri but you lose . Virtually every minority group in America has suffered at the hands of the majority. BTW America was the second to last nattion in the western world to end slavery, the only one to need a war to do so and then came segregation for another hundred years
All due to the bible above quote
If you are so disapointed w/USA, then leave.
France, Germany & Belgium will welcome you with open arms.
Um, just curious if YOU will be leaving the USA when it passes marriage equality in all 50 states?
I hear you might like Iran. They kill homosexuals there.
50 states? You first, since you are so disapointed w/USA, already
I guess you don't care about your brothers in Iran either. How selfish!.
You don't know the story about "the mark of Cain"? Get thee to a Bible, quickly.
A separate issue from homosexual marriage infringing on the most important amendment, the FIRST Amendment, is the governors blatant circumvention of the democratic process. The issue of marriage has already been decided and voted on. The Hawaii State voters have already decided to define what marriage properly is. Therefore, if a change is to be made to the law, the only proper process is to follow the same procedure by which the law was enacted in the first place. BY POPULAR VOTE. Otherwise any popular vote on any issue found on a ballot is completely meaningless if 77 legislatures can subsequently change it. It defeats the purpose of voting on an issue at all.
it's called tyranny.
tyraanny of the majority BTW the supreme court ruled gays get equal rights – thats whats driving conserrvatives to distracton.
The rights of a minority group should never be subjected to the whims of the majority. Indeed, one of the responsibilities of the courts is to prevent this sort of tyrannical nonsense entirely, and when they fulfill this vital role, conservative bigots start screeching about "activist judges" circumventing the will of the people.
Your religious beliefs are not a valid reason to deny marriage to anyone. Additionally, if you hold a public office or own a business, anti-discrimination laws are already in place to ensure that you do not discriminate against a minority group simply because you find them distasteful.
As far as I'm concerned, SB1 has been a huge opportunity for the conservative Christians to showcase how shockingly bigoted they are and further alienate the younger generation (who overwhelmingly believe that same-sex marriage should be allowed and that homosexuality is a natural variation in sexual orientation). These Christians are making themselves look terrible on the world stage and in the eyes of possible future adherents in their demands for law-imposed bigotry.
Don't like same-sex marriages? Fine. Don't get one. But don't hold me to the silly ideas of your fairy tale.
Just like B.O.'s 2008 inaguration for The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization, has been a huge opportunity to showcase how shockingly bigoted they are about Warren's opposition to gay marriage is a sign of intolerance.
"We feel a deep level of disrespect when one of the architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination," the group said in a letter to Obama, asking him to reconsider.
Comments are closed.