 |
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) stand for religious freedom and realize that the stakes are high as the debate rolls on about the extent to which religious individuals and organizations may freely exercise freedom of conscience in all settings, private and public.
We’d like to make you aware of a recent statement crafted by a multi-faith coalition advocating freedom of religion in America. In this united inter-faith effort, religious leaders from Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Evangelical, Jewish, Lutheran, Latter-day Saint (Mormon), and Pentecostal communities in the United States affirmed the significance of and released to the general public on January 12, 2012. It is printed below and linked to in this paragraph. We encourage all to read it and to share it with those in a position to speak out on these issues.unmitigated connection between marriage and religious freedoms in an open letter to the world. The letter is entitled Marriage and Religious Freedoms: Fundamental Goods that Stand or Fall Together. This joint affirmative statement was
Church leaders attested, within this open letter that consequences and spill-overs from redefining marriage will be seen everywhere, should that movement be left unchecked:
There will arise issues in a broad range of legal contexts, because altering the civil definition of ‘marriage’ does not change one law, but hundreds, even thousands, at once.By a single stroke, every law where rights depend on marital status—such as employment discrimination, employment benefits, adoption, education, healthcare, elder care, housing, property, and taxation—will change so that same-sex sexual relationships must be treated as if they were marriage. That requirement, in turn, will apply to religious people and groups in the ordinary course of their many private or public occupations and ministries—including running schools, hospitals, nursing homes and other housing facilities, providing adoption and counseling services, and many others.
The leaders additionally encouraged, even urged, civic leaders to defend marriage so as also to defend religious liberty.
“We especially urge those entrusted with the public good to support laws that uphold the time-honored definition of marriage, and so avoid threatening the religious freedom of countless institutions and citizens in this country,” the religious leaders said. “Marriage and religious freedom are both deeply woven into the fabric of this nation.”
MARRIAGE AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: Fundamental Goods That Stand or Fall Together
An Open Letter from Religious Leaders in the United States to All Americans
Released January 12, 2012
Dear Friends:
The promotion and protection of marriage—the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife—is a matter of the common good and serves the wellbeing of the couple, of children, of civil society and all people. The meaning and value of marriage precedes and transcends any particular society, government, or religious community. It is a universal good and the foundational institution of all societies. It is bound up with the nature of the human person as male and female, and with the essential task of bearing and nurturing children.
As religious leaders across a wide variety of faith communities, we join together to affirm that marriage in its true definition must be protected for its own sake and for the good of society. We also recognize the grave consequences of altering this definition. One of these consequences—the interference with the religious freedom of those who continue to affirm the true definition of “marriage”—warrants special attention within our faith communities and throughout society as a whole. For this reason, we come together with one voice in this letter.
Some posit that the principal threat to religious freedom posed by same-sex “marriage” is the possibility of government’s forcing religious ministers to preside over such “weddings,” on pain of civil or criminal liability. While we cannot rule out this possibility entirely, we believe that the First Amendment creates a very high bar to such attempts.
Instead, we believe the most urgent peril is this: forcing or pressuring both individuals and religious organizations—throughout their operations, well beyond religious ceremonies—to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct. There is no doubt that the many people and groups whose moral and religious convictions forbid same-sex sexual conduct will resist the compulsion of the law, and church-state conflicts will result.
These conflicts bear serious consequences. They will arise in a broad range of legal contexts, because altering the civil definition of “marriage” does not change one law, but hundreds, even thousands, at once. By a single stroke, every law where rights depend on marital status—such as employment discrimination, employment benefits, adoption, education, healthcare, elder care, housing, property, and taxation—will change so that same-sex sexual relationships must be treated as if they were marriage. That requirement, in turn, will apply to religious people and groups in the ordinary course of their many private or public occupations and ministries—including running schools, hospitals, nursing homes and other housing facilities, providing adoption and counseling services, and many others.
So, for example, religious adoption services that place children exclusively with married couples would be required by law to place children with persons of the same sex who are civilly “married.” Religious marriage counselors would be denied their professional accreditation for refusing to provide counseling in support of same-sex “married” relationships. Religious employers who provide special health benefits to married employees would be required by law to extend those benefits to same-sex “spouses.” Religious employers would also face lawsuits for taking any adverse employment action—no matter how modest— against an employee for the public act of obtaining a civil “marriage” with a member of the same sex. This is not idle speculation, as these sorts of situations have already come to pass. Even where religious people and groups succeed in avoiding civil liability in cases like these, they would face other government sanctions—the targeted withdrawal of government co-operation, grants, or other benefits.
For example, in New Jersey, the state cancelled the tax-exempt status of a Methodist-run boardwalk pavilion used for religious services because the religious organization would not host a same-sex “wedding” there. San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social service contracts with the Salvation Army because it refused to recognize same-sex “domestic partnerships” in its employee benefits policies. Similarly, Portland, Maine, required Catholic Charities to extend spousal employee benefits to same-sex “domestic partners” as a condition of receiving city housing and community development funds.
In short, the refusal of these religious organizations to treat a same-sex sexual relationship as if it were a marriage marked them and their members as bigots, subjecting them to the full arsenal of government punishments and pressures reserved for racists. These punishments will only grow more frequent and more severe if civil “marriage” is redefined in additional jurisdictions. For then, government will compel special recognition of relationships that we the undersigned religious leaders and the communities of faith that we represent cannot, in conscience, affirm. Because law and government not only coerce and incentivize but also teach, these sanctions would lend greater moral legitimacy to private efforts to punish those who defend marriage.
Therefore, we encourage all people of good will to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman, and to consider carefully the far-reaching consequences for the religious freedom of all Americans if marriage is redefined. We especially urge those entrusted with the public good to support laws that uphold the time-honored definition of marriage, and so avoid threatening the religious freedom of countless institutions and citizens in this country. Marriage and religious freedom are both deeply woven into the fabric of this nation.
May we all work together to strengthen and preserve the unique meaning of marriage and the precious gift of religious freedom.
Sincerely Yours:
Rev. Leith Anderson
President National Association of Evangelicals
Johann Christoph Arnold
Senior Pastor Bruderhof Communities
Randall A. Bach
President Open Bible Churches
Dr. Gary M. Benedict
President The Christian and Missionary Alliance
The Rev. John F. Bradosky
Bishop North American Lutheran Church
Glenn Burris, Jr.
President The Foursquare Church
Bishop H. David Burton
Presiding Bishop The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Dr. Ronald W. Carpenter, Sr.
Presiding Bishop International Pentecostal Holiness Church
Rabbi Abba Cohen
Vice President for Federal Affairs Washington Director Agudath Israel of America
Most Rev. Salvatore J. Cordileone
Bishop of Oakland Chairman USCCB Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage
Nathan J. Diament
Executive Director for Public Policy Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan
Archbishop of New York President United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Dr. Barrett Duke
Vice President for Public Policy and Research Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
The Most Rev. Robert Duncan
Archbishop, Anglican Church in North America Bishop, Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh
Rev. Jim Eschenbrenner
Executive Pastor General Council of Christian Union Churches
Dr. William J. Hamel
President Evangelical Free Church of America
Rev. Dr. Ron Hamilton
Conference Minister Conservative Congregational Christian Conference
Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison
President Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod
John Hopler
Director Great Commission Churches
Dr. Bill Hossler
President Missionary Church, Inc.
Clyde M. Hughes
General Overseer International Pentecostal Church of Christ
Rev. Kenneth D. Hunn
Executive Director The Brethren Church
David W. Kendall
Bishop Free Methodist Church USA
Dr. Richard Land
President Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
Most Rev. William E. Lori
Bishop of Bridgeport Chairman USCCB Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty
Dr. Jo Anne Lyon
Chair Board of General Superintendents The Wesleyan Church
James W. Murray
Executive Director General Association of General Baptists
Most Rev. Kevin C. Rhoades
Bishop of Ft. Wayne – South Bend Chairman USCCB Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth
Commissioner William A. Roberts
National Commander The Salvation Army
Rocky Rocholl
President Fellowship of Evangelical Churches
Rev. Samuel Rodriguez
President National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference
David T. Roller
Bishop Free Methodist Church USA
Matthew A. Thomas
Bishop Free Methodist Church USA
Dr. Joseph Tkach
President & Pastor General Grace Communion International
Berten A. Waggoner
National Director Vineyard USA
W. Phillip Whipple
Bishop United Brethren in Christ Church, USA
Dr. John P. Williams, Jr.
Regional Director Evangelical Friends Church, North America
David P. Wilson
General Secretary Church of the Nazarene
Dr. George O. Wood
General Superintendent Assemblies of God
Additional Resources:
What Religious Freedom Means. From the official site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (inadvertently called by friends of other faiths as the “Mormon Church”).
Religious liberty is necessary for a healthy society.
Request a free copy of the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.
Recent Comments