A proposed state effort to legally redefine marriage to encompass same-sex couples has attracted the intense attention of Illinois religious leaders. The bill was introduced on Wednesday, the first day of the state legislature’s new session. While this bill lacked sufficient support for passage in the previous session of the state legislature, that may change with the stronger Democratic majorities elected in November. Illinois legalized civil unions for same-sex couples less than two years ago.
One group of 260 Illinois clergy have released a letter strongly supporting the bill, declaring that “[t]here can be no justification for the law treating people differently on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.” This letter also claims that the bill “protects religious freedom and guarantees that all faiths will decide which marriages should be consecrated and solemnized within their tradition.”
The signatories are almost entirely liberal Unitarian Universalists, Jews, and progressive Protestants, plus a small number of Catholic individuals and representatives of apparently New Age movements. The two signers identified as “Orthodox” are actually not part of any recognized branch of Eastern Orthodoxy. Rather, they are affiliated with a part of a proudly homosexuality-affirming Chicago community of the obscure “Orthodox Catholic Church,” which may be the same one in which Troy Plummer, the longtime leader of the pro-sex-outside-of-marriage Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN), was ordained.
Separately, Sally Dyck, the United Methodist bishop for the Chicago area, released a statement supporting the bill as “a civil rights issue.” Bishop Dyck conceded that “the United Methodist Church holds that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching,” she cannot allow clergy to bless same-sex unions, and “[n]ot all United Methodists will agree with [her] belief on marriage.” But she also notably avoided acknowledging that the United Methodist Church has this well-established position: “We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” Bishop Dyck’s letter was almost immediately promoted as a fundraising tool by RMN, of which she has been a longtime strong supporter.
Meanwhile, another interfaith group of Illinois religious leaders have issued their own statement opposing the bill. Their letter defends marriage as “an institution fundamental to the well-being of society” and warns that “ongoing attempts to alter the definition of marriage in civil law are full of serious danger,” namely “degrading the cultural understanding of marriage to an emotional bond between any two adults” and “directly impact[ing]” freedom of conscience. The letter portrays the religious-liberty protections in the bill as inadequate:
“Some claim that as long as religious ministers are not forced to preside over same-sex ‘marriages’ the principle of religious freedom, as secured in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment is protected. However, the notion that the exercise of religious freedom is confined to the interior of churches, synagogues, temples or mosques or what one does on Holy Days is wrong and dangerous. The freedom of religion also extends to the ministries of religious organizations and to the individual conscience. Thus, the real peril: if marriage is redefined in civil law, individuals and religious organizations – regardless of deeply held beliefs – will be compelled to treat same-sex unions as the equivalent of marriage in their lives, ministries and operations. Compulsion of this nature is a violation of personal conscience and of religious liberty.”
While the first, pro-same-sex-“marriage” letter made clear that its signatories were only speaking as individuals, not on behalf of their associated institutions, the signers of the second, pro-traditional marriage letter made clear that they were indeed speaking on behalf of the religious communities they lead. The letter opposing the liberalizing bill was thus endorsed by the leadership of roughly 1,700 local faith communities in the state, including every diocesan Roman Catholic bishop in Illinois, the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago, the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) bishop of the Diocese of Quincy, Elder Jack Ward of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), the state leadership of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, and numerous individual Protestant congregations.
This latter category includes a number of largely African-American churches, a demographic which the Christian Post noted was largely absent from the pro-same-sex-“marriage” letter. Separately, a group of African-American pastors in Chicago held a press conference opposing the marriage-redefining bill and decrying legislators ignoring their concerns after showing up at their churches to attract votes.
An Orthodox Jewish group is also reportedly preparing to release its own letter opposing the marriage-redefinition bill.
Zachary Wichmann, Director of Government Relations for the Catholic Conference of Illinois and a key organizer of the pro-traditional marriage letter, rejects accusations that he and his interfaith allies are seeking to impose sectarian religious teaching on others. Rather, he told IRD in an interview that signatories are “giving voice to our beliefs” and inviting other Illinoisans to consider how this pro-traditional marriage position is best for the common good. Wichmann also pointed out that the definition of marriage as only between man and woman “was not defined by the church” but rather came much earlier, “defined in nature and by nature’s God.” The Roman Catholic leader also said that “[w]e don’t believe in discrimination … hate or anger towards gays” and that “[t]he church welcomes and seeks to serve all people.”
The pro-marriage-redefinition letter was frustratingly brief and arguably dismissive in its treatment of how same-sex marriage in Illinois would impact the consciences of people with traditional values. So I interviewed several signers of the liberal letter and found a range of responses to the above-quoted paragraph from the pro-traditional-marriage letter.
Rev. Dr. Larry Greenfield, Executive of the American Baptist Churches of Metro Chicago, is a co-founder of the Religious Institute (devoted to promoting sexual liberalism and abortion) and a former board member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). While he supports same-sex marriage as a “civil rights issue,” as a self-described “religious liberty fanatic” he believes that a wedding photographer should “absolutely not” be compelled to service a ceremony that violates her own core values. On the other hand, he said that a hotel owner should be legally forbidden from preventing a same-sex couple from spending their honeymoon at his facilities. Greenfield said that for him the key dividing lines were whether or not something was a “public accommodation” and, somewhat circularly, what the law said. While as a minister he was personally very comfortable performing same-sex blessings, he offered an err-on-the-side-of-conservatism estimate that only about 20 percent of the pastors, together with their congregations, of the association he leads would be personally willing to host a same-sex union service.
Rev. Kara Wagner Sherer of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Chicago was less sure about conscience protections. On the one hand, as a general value, she is very opposed to any “discrimination” against same-sex couples, and opined that “when we do what’s best for the common good, we give up a little bit of our own freedom.” But on the other hand, she was not certain whether or not she wanted the government to compel wedding-related businesses to serve same-sex couples, and expressed some hope that such questions could be resolved by market pressures.
A harder line was taken by the Rev. Stan Sloan, an Episcopal priest, inductee in the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame, and CEO of an HIV/AIDS-related social service agency. He dismissed the conscience concerns of traditional-marriage defenders as an “outrageous” attempt to “somehow distort civil liberties to promote discrimination.” According to Rev. Sloan, no wedding-related business or contractor should be allowed to refuse service to same-sex couples, just as businesses have no right to deny service on racist grounds. Furthermore, the Episcopal priest insisted that even private religious organizations should be compelled by the government to operate according to same-sex-marriage-affirming policies, regardless of their core beliefs.
No comments yet
