.png)
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – Opponents of same-sex marriage are scrambling to find effective responses – in Congress and state legislatures – to a rash of court rulings forcing some of America’s most conservative states to accept gay nuptials.
Some gay-marriage foes are backing a bill recently introduced in both chambers of Congress leaving states fully in charge of their marriage policies, though the measure stands little chance of passage. In the states, they are endorsing a multitude of bills – some intended to protect gay-marriage bans, others to assert a right, based on religious freedom – to have nothing to do with gay marriages should those bans be struck down.
In Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Virginia, federal judges have voided part or all of the bans on same-sex marriage voters approved between 2004 and 2006. Each of the rulings has been stayed pending appeals, and a final nationwide resolution may be a few years away in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, known for fighting to display the Ten Commandments in a judicial building, has written to all 50 governors urging them to support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between only a man and a woman.
In Missouri, where voters approved a gay-marriage ban in 2004, eight Republican House members filed articles of impeachment against Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon after he ordered his administration to accept joint-tax returns from same-sex couples who were legally married in other states.
“The people put it in the constitution that marriage is between one man and one woman – the issue is the governor has absolutely ignored the constitution and the people’s will,” said Rep. Ron Schieber, a Republican from Kansas City.
The demand for religious exemptions, meanwhile, is widespread. Gay-marriage opponents have fought for strong exemptions in every state where lawmakers have already decided the issue.
However, the resulting exemptions have generally been limited in scope – and haven’t come anywhere near to what gay-marriage opponents sought. In Massachusetts and Iowa, where same-sex marriage won recognition through the courts, there are no religious exemptions related to the rulings.
In light of this track record, opponents in red states have been proposing pre-emptive bills with broad accommodations for religious objectors. Most of the bills aim to protect individuals or businesses who, for religious reasons, don’t want to serve same-sex couples.
Bills in Ohio, Mississippi, Arizona, Idaho and Oklahoma would allow a person or company to assert a religious freedom defense against a lawsuit from another private party. For example, a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple could defend his decision as a legally protected religious right.
In some states, they have suffered setbacks.
The Kansas House passed a measure last week providing a faith-based legal shield for people who refuse to provide services to gays and lesbians. It details which services would be exempted – ranging from bakeries to adoption agencies to government clerks – and allows faith-based refusal of services to gay couples in any domestic partnership. But the top Republican in the state Senate put a quick stop to the bill’s momentum, declaring a majority of GOP lawmakers in that chamber don’t support it.
“A strong majority of my members support laws that define traditional marriage,” said Senate President Susan Wagle. “However, my members also don’t condone discrimination.”
In South Dakota, a Republican-led Senate committee narrowly defeated a similar bill that would have barred lawsuits or criminal charges against clergy who refuse to perform same-sex weddings. Critics of the bill said it was unnecessary because the U.S. Constitution already guarantees religious freedom.
One of the sponsors of that measure was Rep. Steve Hickey, pastor of a Sioux Falls church opposing gay marriage.
“I’m saying keep the state out of my church,” Hickey said at a committee hearing. “I only promote and perform traditional marriages. ... It’s is not because there is any bigotry. It’s because I deeply care about people.”
Overall, Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow with the conservative Family Research Council, said he remained hopeful the U.S. Supreme Court – if it takes up appeals of any of the recent federal court cases – would not rush to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.
Last June, the high court did order the federal government to recognize valid same-sex marriages, which are allowed in 17 states and the District of Columbia. But the court declined to go further and require all states to allow them.
Opponents of same-sex marriage insist on the right to take their cause to the statehouses.
“We support the right of people in the country to disagree on the policy of marriage,” said Jim Campbell of the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom. “We as a people, state by state, need to decide what the future of marriage is going to be.”
Crary and Zoll reported from New York. Associated Press writers John Hanna in Topeka, Kansas, and Chet Brokaw in Pierre, S.D., also contributed to this report.
