Paul Musgrave February 11, 2011 POT 4632 0001 Religion and Civil Rights: The Debate Over

r Gay Marriage. Angry protesters went to the streets in November of 2008, following the adoption of Proposition 8, a measure to eliminate the right for homosexuals to legally wed, by California voters. Shouting chants of No H8, the protesters decried what they viewed as an abuse of the democratic process, an improper invasion of religious groups in the role of government, and the elimination of the rights of a minority group by members of the majority. As opponents of Proposition 8 organized protests and filed lawsuits, supporters of the measure celebrated what they viewed as a righteous decision that would protect marriage from sinful and morally destructive elements. In one of the most heated battles of the so-called culture wars, the story of Proposition 8 would unfold into one of the most prominent standoffs in the long national discussion behind gay marriage. As of this writing, the story remains unfinished while the case goes through the appeals process. Nevertheless, analysts continue to study the case from virtually all angles. In American politics, the debate regarding gay marriage and homosexuality is fueled primarily by the various religious stances on the issue, the argument over behavioral versus categorical minority groups, and the civil rights of the parties involved. The viewpoints of religious denominations vary greatly, with some faiths affirming homosexuality and gay marriage as acceptable and normal while others dismiss it completely as sinful and unnatural. In the United States, over three-quarters of the population identify as a Christian in one aspect or another, according to information provided by the United States Department of State.1 Within Christianity, there are several different affiliations, including

Musgrave 2 Evangelical Protestant, Catholic, Mainline Protestant, Historically Black Churches, and the LatterDay Saints, or Mormons. Most Christian organizations view homosexuality as sinful and do not support gay marriage, including the Roman Catholic Church,2 the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,3 the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod,4 the National Association of Evangelicals,5 and the Southern Baptist Convention.6 However, there are some Christian organizations that not only affirm homosexuality but bless same-sex marriage or unions as well, including the Episcopal Church,7 some Evangelical Lutheran churches,8 and the Unitarian Universalists.9 Within the Jewish faith, the Reform10 and Reconstructionist11 Movements as a whole support gay unions, as well as some Conservative temples,12 while Orthodox Jews remain altogether opposed to gay marriage.13 Islam is almost universally opposed to homosexuality,14 while in Buddhist15 and Hindu16 traditions it varies depending on interpretation. Considering the myriad religious viewpoints on the subject, it becomes difficult to determine exactly what politicians mean when they attempt to define marriage in the name of God. In such a large and diverse nation endowed with the freedom of religion, the argument to restrict marriage to a particular religious viewpoint becomes an issue of extreme contention. The debate regarding gay marriage and rights for homosexuals tends to hinge upon whether homosexuality is a categorical or behavioral classification. Within this group alone, there are several different viewpoints from both religious and secular sources. Some religious opinions, such as that of the Roman Catholic Church, view sexual orientation as purely a choice,17 while others, such as the Unitarians, view sexual orientation as an inherent part of a persons being.18 Others, such as the Southern Baptist Convention, adopt hybrid positions, claiming that while homosexuality may be part of a persons being, it does not justify homosexual behavior.19 This brings up the question of whether homosexuality is categorical to wit: inborn or behavioral.

Musgrave 3 Due in part to the wide range of religious opinions, and the amount of tension in the debate, some turn to science to determine whether or not homosexuals are a categorical or behavioral minority. Results from a 2008 scientific study at the Karolinska Institutet, a medical university in Stockholm, Sweden, tend to support the claim that sexual orientation is an inborn trait based upon examination of the test subjects responses to various stimuli.20 The study looked at ninety subjects, including forty homosexual men and women, and found that upon studying magnetic resonance of the subjects brains, that heterosexual women and homosexual men had similar cerebral responses to the various stimuli while the brains of homosexual women responded more in line to that of a heterosexual man.21 What can be determined, therefore, from the results of this study, is that homosexuality is indeed not a learned behavior but rather link[ed] to neurobiological entities.22 In addition to studies such as the one in Stockholm, the American Psychological Association maintains that homosexuality is likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive, and biological factors.23 Yet such studies are not universally accepted, particularly by religious organizations. Exodus International, one of the leading proponents of the ex-gay concept, claim that homosexuality can be cured through repetitive therapy,24 declaring success via the testimonials from those who were able to overcome same-sex attraction.25 While the findings of the former organizations tend to be more scientific in nature, religious organizations opposed to homosexual rights use evidence such as the ex-gay in their argument that homosexuality is a behavior and not an inherent trait. Disagreement amongst the various viewpoints in regards to what defines civil rights and the role of religion in the United States helps fuel the debate at hand. Opposing viewpoints on the subject of homosexuality see allusions to the Christian God in the Declaration of Independence, as well as calls for Christian prayer rituals by the Continental Congress under the Articles of

Musgrave 4 Confederation, as evidence of the Christian underpinnings of the Constitutional government.26 Their interpretation of the First Amendment places heavy emphasis on the Free Exercise Clause and a very narrow interpretation of the Establishment Clause, believing that it only prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion. This interpretation is evident in a 1982 speech by former President Ronald Reagan, in which he said the First Amendment was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny.27 By this understanding, the First Amendment does not deny religious organizations the right to legislate morality or decide by popular majority to curtail and prohibit what they view to be sinful and immoral behavior, including homosexuality. Liberals cite Thomas Jefferson in his 1802 Letter to the Danbury Baptists, in which the former President and Constitutional author maintains that the First Amendment was intended to establish a wall of separation between Church and State,28 thus prohibiting religious interference in the matters of the state and vice-versa. When placed in the context of denying homosexuals the right to marry, the argument of civil rights blossoms into a far more complex matter. Conservatives claim that their free exercise of religion as protected by the First Amendment allows them to limit the definition of marriage to one man and one woman through the power of legislation. Gay rights groups, naturally, claim that such legislation infringes upon the rights of a categorical minority, citing scientific evidence, as well as wrongfully imposing religious ideology upon said minority. However, a less publicized argument revolves around how such legislation curtails religious liberties. The enactment of marriage definition amendments and legislation curtail the First Amendment rights of faiths that affirm and perform homosexual unions, while simultaneously doing nothing to protect or enhance the right to free exercise for disapproving faiths. In the case of Proposition 8, the primary issue was whether the democratic process had legitimized marriage

Musgrave 5 discrimination, and whether religious groups, primarily Catholic and Mormon organizations, had justification in their campaign to amend the California constitution to include marriage discrimination. In his ruling on the issue, Judge Vaughn R. Walker determined that Proposition 8 violated the rights of gay men and lesbians, finding it unconstitutional on the grounds of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.29 Additionally, Judge Walker found that moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians,30 and that the state had not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result31 of having already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples.32 The case of Proposition 8, and cases like it, have helped form a national debate which examines what the various religious opinions are on the issue, whether homosexuals are part of a categorical or behavioral minority, and whether the civil rights of gay men and lesbians should be protected. While many religious opinions disapprove of homosexuality, some groups not only affirm it but also perform and bless same-sex unions. Most scientific studies, performed by medical and psychological institutions, support the notion that homosexuality is an inborn trait. However, some religious organizations support the idea that intense therapy and prayer may cure homosexuals of their attraction to members of the same gender. The outcome of these arguments will determine whether gay men and lesbians are protected under civil rights legislation. With bated breath, the American public waits to see what the outcome of the Proposition 8 story will have on gay rights in California or across the nation. Yet, despite a long and troubled history with civil rights, the United States has always overcome its problems to become the nation it is today. Throughout history, justice has always persevered.

Footnotes and Citations

Main Religious Affiliations in the United States. America.gov. United States Department of State. Accessed: 02/08/11. <http://www.america.gov/st/peoplepleaceenglish/2008/March /20080317160257zjsredna0.8236048.html> 2 Bishops Administrative Committee Reaffirms Support for Federal Marriage Amendment. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Accessed: 02/08/11. <http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2006/06-052.shtml> 3 The Family: A Proclamation to the World. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Accessed: 02/08/11. <http://lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html> 4 Same-Sex Marriage. The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. Accessed: 02/08/11. <http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=16305> 5 Homosexuality 2004. National Association of Evangelicals. Accessed: 02/08/11. <http://www.nae.net/government-affairs/policy-resolutions/181-homosexuality-2004-> 6 SBC Resolutions On Same-Sex Marriage. Southern Baptist Convention. Accessed: 02/08/11. <http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1128> 7 Acts of Convention: Resolution 2006-A095. The Archives of the Episcopal Church. Accessed: 02/08/11. <http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_resolutioncomplete.pl?resolution=2006-A095> 8 Sexuality. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Accessed: 02/08/11. <http://www. elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Social-Statements/JTF-Human-Sexuality.aspx> 9 Support of the Right to Marry for Same-Sex Couples. Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations. Accessed: 02/08/11. <http://www.uua.org/socialjustice/socialjustice/ statements/14251.shtml> 10 Reform Movement Perspective. Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. Accessed: 02/08/11. <http://rac.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=3231&pge_prg_id=11176&pge_id=2413> 11 Reconstructionist Movement Issues Joint Statement on Same-Sex Marriage Bans. Jewish Reconstructionist Federation. Accessed: 02/08/11. <http://jrf.org/same-sex-marriagebans> 12 Rabbinical Assembly Committee on Jewish Law and Standards Concludes Meeting On Issue of Homosexuality and Halakha. Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly. Accessed: 02/08/11. <http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/press/docs/ CJLS%20Decisions%20on%20Homosexuality.doc> 13 Orthodox Response to Same-Sex Marriage. Institute for Public Affairs. Orthodox Union. Accessed: 02/08/11. <http://www.ou.org/public_affairs/article/ou_resp_same_sex_ marriage> 14 Same Sex Marriage and Marriage in Islam. Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc. Accessed: 02/08/11. <http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_151_200/same_sex_ marriage_and_marriage_i.htm> 15 Bhikkhu, Mettanando. Religion and same-sex marriage. The Bangkok Post. July 13, 2005. Accessed: 02/08/11. <http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=70,1429,0,0,1,0> 16 Discussions on Dharma. Hinduism Today. October/November/December, 2004. Accessed: 02/08/11. <http://www.faithandthecity.org/issues/social/articles/ Discussions_on_Dharma%20.shtml> 17 Homosexuality and Christianity. ReligionFacts. Accessed: 02/08/11. <http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/christianity.htm> 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Savic-Berglund, Ivanka and Per Lindstrm. Brain similarities between homosexuals and opposite sex. Karolinska Institutet. 20 June 2008. Accessed: 02/09/11. <http://ki.se/ki/ jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=130&a=58064&l=en&newsdep=130>

21

Savic, Ivanka and Per Lindstrm. PET and MRI show differences in cerebreal asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects. PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 30 April 2008. Accessed: 02/09/11. <http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/06/13/0801566105.abstract> 22 Ibid. 23 Sexual orientation and homosexuality. American Psychological Association. Accessed: 02/09/11. <http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx> 24 Help for Leaving Homosexuality. Exodus International. Accessed: 02/09/11. <http://exodusinternational.org/find-help/leaving-homosexuality/> 25 Therapy. Exodus International. Accessed: 02/09/11. <http://exodusinternational.org/?s=therapy> 26 Religion and the Congress of the Confederation, 1774-89. Religion and the Founding of the American Republic. United States Library of Congress. Accessed: 02/09/11. <http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html> 27 Marus, Robert and Greg Warner. Ronald Reagans ascent to office paralleled rise of Religious Right. Associated Baptist Press. 8 June 2004. Accessed: 02/09/11. <http://www. abpnews.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=2147> 28 Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to Danbury Baptists. Library of Congress. 1 January 1802. Accessed: 02/09/11. <http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html> 29 Perry v. Schwartzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010) 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid.