Correcting the record: Question 6 and religious liberty protections

At Red Maryland (page archive), Brian Griffiths writes the following:

Something that should have been obvious from the get go but 2012’s Question 6, which was supported by Maryland Democrats and current Republican Senate candidate Chrys Kefalas, contained not a single provision protecting the religious liberties of any Marylanders.

To begin with a parenthetical issue, invoking Chrys Kefalas seems a little gratuitous, since Question 6 was supported not only by a majority of Maryland voters but by a number of elected Republicans like now-Howard County executive Allan Kittleman (and opposed by some elected Democrats). What is not gratuitous, but simply wrong, is Griffiths’ assertion about the bill’s contents, even as he links its synopsis, which even at a glance shows the contrary:

Altering a provision of law to establish that only a marriage between two individuals who are not otherwise prohibited from marrying is valid in the State; prohibiting an official of a religious order or body authorized to perform a marriage ceremony from being required to solemnize or officiate at a marriage or religious rite of a marriage in violation of the constitutional right to free exercise of religion; making the Act contingent on the resolution of litigation under specified circumstances; etc.

Emphasis added. And that was only one of a series of religious- and conscience-protecting provisions in Sections II, III, and IV. The bill’s full text, linked from the history/synopsis page, summarizes these additional provisions in its prefatory description of purposes:

…establishing that certain religious entities have exclusive control over their own theological doctrine, policy teachings, or beliefs regarding who may marry within that faith; prohibiting certain officials from being subject to any fine or penalty for failing or refusing to join individuals in marriage; prohibiting certain religious entities from being required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges to an individual under certain circumstances; providing that a certain refusal by a certain religious entity or an individual employed by a certain religious entity may not create a civil claim or cause of action or result in any State action to penalize, withhold benefits from, or discriminate against such entities or individuals; prohibiting certain fraternal benefit societies from being required to admit an individual as a member or provide insurance benefits to an individual under certain circumstances; providing that a certain refusal by a certain fraternal benefit society may not create a civil claim or cause of action or constitute the basis for the withholding of governmental benefits or services from the fraternal benefit society; …

Hat tip for noticing this error to David Lublin at Seventh State. Lublin’s point of view on some of the other issues involved differs from my own, but I agree on one point: Red Maryland owes Kefalas in particular an apology. And while we’re at it, after this and the recent episode involving CD-6 candidate Amie Hoeber, would anyone regard Red Maryland as a suitably impartial sponsor for a debate between Kefalas and other Republican Senate candidates?

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Law

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s