JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — A bill to give some of the nation’s broadest legal protections to opponents of same-sex marriage took a crucial step forward in Missouri on Wednesday, winning approval by the State Senate after Republicans used a rare procedural move to break a 39-hour filibuster by Democrats.
The bill is one of many that have been introduced in state legislatures and in Congress since the Supreme Court’s ruling in June in favor of same-sex marriage, and that supporters say aim to protect religious freedom and opponents say permit discrimination. But experts say that in some ways, the Missouri bill, similar to one being considered in Georgia, would go further than any law now in place, prompting challenges that could keep the issue before the courts for years.
The Missouri bill, a proposed amendment to the state Constitution, would shield religious organizations and religious leaders from having anything to do with same-sex wedding ceremonies or celebrations. Opponents contend that the bill is probably unconstitutional, and that the wording could lead to much broader consequences, like denying social services, education, employment or housing to married gay people.
Democrats began a filibuster on Monday afternoon, but with Republicans holding an overwhelming majority in the chamber, it was clear that opponents could only delay the bill, not defeat it. The Legislature allows lawmakers to cut off debate and call a vote by submitting a letter signed by a simple majority of the members; the rule is often invoked in the House, but rarely in the Senate, in deference to the chamber’s tradition of letting senators have their say.
But on Wednesday morning, after the debate had moved into a third day, 21 Republicans signed such a letter. They submitted it after 7 a.m., the vote was called, and the bill passed on a 23-to-9 vote. The Senate must pass it a second time before sending it to the House, which is also controlled by Republicans. If both chambers approve it, the measure would go on the ballot later this year and voters would determine its fate.
The long debate got loopy at times, as sleep-deprived Democrats took turns talking to hold the floor in the mostly empty chamber, while exhausted lawmakers slipped out to nap or change clothes. The increasingly punchy senators discussed everything from Tyler Perry movies to which shoes they should have worn, to unrelated bills, while occasionally veering into heartfelt debates on the gay marriage bill itself.
“My conscience comes from the Bible, the inerrant word of the Bible,” said Senator David Sater, a Republican. “It’s a conscience protection bill.”
But Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal, a Democrat, said: “This is a major scarring of equality in Missouri. We are living in an environment where hatred is alive, and we as a caucus are not going to tolerate it.”
By making the measure a constitutional amendment, Republicans bypassed the possibility of a veto by Gov. Jay Nixon, whose approval is not needed to put the issue on the ballot. And an amendment would potentially have greater legal weight than the related statutes proposed or passed in other states.
Donald Hinkle, the director of public policy for the Missouri Baptist Convention, which supports the measure, said he was confident of passage. “You’re talking about a state that voted 71 percent to 29 percent to say that marriage is between one man and one woman and put that in the Constitution,” he said, referring to a 2004 ballot measure banning same-sex marriage.
Eunice Rho, the advocacy and policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the bill might be unconstitutional on two grounds. “It allows differential treatment of same-sex couples, which runs counter to the Supreme Court’s decision” in the same-sex marriage case, “and it prefers one set of religious beliefs over others.”
Twenty-one states — including Indiana and Arkansas last year — have enacted what backers call religious freedom laws, which do not mention same-sex couples but subject discrimination lawsuits to tough scrutiny if the discrimination is based on a defendant’s sincere religious belief.
The Missouri bill is one of a new batch of measures that explicitly address same-sex marriage and attempt to pre-empt such lawsuits entirely. None of those has become law so far.
Much of the bill addresses wedding ceremonies and celebrations narrowly, saying clergy members and religious groups would not have to participate or make facilities available. Legal experts say that is probably already true under federal law, though the courts have not addressed it.
The bill would also give businesspeople like caterers and florists the right to refuse to sell products or services for same-sex weddings. Courts in some other states have ruled against vendors who refused.
But the bill would also protect any religious organization acting “in accordance with a sincere religious belief” about same-sex marriage, in a passage that does not limit itself to weddings. And it gives a long list of things that qualify as religious organizations, including schools, charities and retirement homes, as long as their public identity and purpose are “in whole or in part religious.”
Ms. Rho said that could mean denying married gay people housing, employment, social services and schooling. Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Virginia and an expert on religious liberty, said it was “conceivable but unlikely” that the bill would have the more dire effects envisioned by opponents.
As in Indiana, Georgia and other states, some big companies and business organizations have opposed the bill, and opponents have predicted an economic backlash, including boycotts.
This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.
Related
Missouri Senate Approves Bill Protecting Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage #JHedzWorlD
No comments:
Post a Comment