discrimination and hate, equality, religion

Religion and Human Rights (13): Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty, How Much Can We Discriminate?

same-sex marriage

(source)

I already stated my position on gay marriage rights here and here. I’m opposed to all forms of discrimination and I’m a staunch defender of equal rights, so same-sex marriage to me is a no-brainer. Although international human rights law doesn’t explicitly grant gays and lesbians the right to marry, the notion of equal rights can be used to counter discrimination of homosexuals, including discrimination of marriage rights. Article 2 of the Universal Declaration states that everyone is entitled to all the rights set forth in it, without distinction of any kind. And the right to marry is recognized in article 16.

Furthermore, article 7 outlaws discrimination. On the basis of articles 2 and 7, many countries have enacted anti-discrimination legislation which outlaws racial discrimination, gender discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination and sometimes other types of discrimination as well. Such legislation punishes citizens who discriminate other citizens, for example restaurant owners refusing access to homosexuals, Jews, African-Americans etc.

However, the Universal Declaration and many constitutions also grant the right to religious liberty. Article 18 states that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Now, I think it’s fair to admit that freedom of religion and anti-discrimination laws can sometimes clash with each other (although the importance of such conflicts is often artificially inflated by opponents of same-sex marriage, see here for example). Anti-discrimination laws can force people to do things that violate their religious beliefs, if these beliefs require them to discriminate. Such laws can, if we stick to the previous example, force restaurant owners, who believe that homosexuals and Jews are sinners, to open their doors to homosexuals and Jews. When people are forced to act against their religious beliefs – no matter how bigoted these beliefs – it is fair to say that their religious freedom and freedom of conscience and belief are violated. These freedoms are not contingent on the quality of beliefs. All beliefs and religions, even the most bigoted ones, deserve protection (as long as they don’t cause harm to others of course).

same sex marriage

(source)

It is not uncommon to see contradictions in the system of human rights. This system is not a harmonious whole. I’ve covered this problem extensively here and here. Rights are not always compatible, in which case one has to decide which of the conflicting rights has priority (or “trumps the other”). The normal (but not the only) rule is the extent of harm caused by a limitation of one right or the other.

In the case of discrimination of people on the basis of their sexual orientation, anti-discrimination laws based on article 2 of the Universal Declaration (or relevant articles of a national constitution) come into conflict with religious liberty (based also on the Universal Declaration or constitutional provisions). Both rights are very important (and I say this as a non-religious person), so the decision in favor of one or the other will never be an easy one.

Take again the example of the restaurant owner. At first sight, the answer seems obvious: let the restaurant owner refuse entry. The harm done by forcing him to grant access is clearly greater than the harm of forcing homosexuals to find another place to eat. On top of that, the restaurant owner can rightfully claim that not only his religious liberty and freedom of belief would suffer from forced access, but also his right to property (and to use it as he pleases). However, on closer inspection, things aren’t so clear. The harm done to homosexuals is likely to be much greater than just a dinner inconvenience. If a restaurant owner is allowed to discriminate, then this sends a signal to others that discrimination is OK. Choosing the side of the restaurant owner is in fact choosing the side of discrimination and legitimizes discrimination, causing harm that is potentially very widespread. After all, in a great majority of cases of people refusing to do something because of their discriminatory beliefs, there is someone else available to do what they refuse to do. So allowing people to refuse in one case because there is someone else who will not refuse (another restaurant), opens the door to a great number of refusals, and hence to widespread discrimination.

Furthermore, many cases are much more complicated than the restaurant case. How about a doctor refusing fertility treatment to a lesbian couple (married or not)? Or a Muslim doctor refusing to treat a female patient? Or a Christian university refusing to grant a gay person a place in its dormitory? Or a Catholic adoption agency refusing to place children with same-sex couples (married or not)? It’s clear that in many of these cases, the rights of those discriminated should take precedence over the freedom of belief of those discriminating because the harm done by discrimination is greater than the harm done by outlawing discrimination.

ban gay marriage cartoon

(source)

We should also distinguish between refusal by private persons and refusal by public officials. It seems much less acceptable for the latter to refuse to grant their services to certain types of people. The government should never discriminate people on the basis of religious belief. Governments should be religiously neutral as much as possible, and should respect the separation of state and church.

Anyway, sometimes anti-discrimination laws will trump other rights such as the freedom of religion, and sometimes not. So equal rights for gays, including the equal right to marry, will not “kill” religious freedom as some on the right believe. If we can convince opponents of anti-discrimination in general and same-sex marriage in particular that the concerns of religious beliefs are taken seriously and are not systematically deemed of lesser importance compared to equality, then they may give up some of their opposition. After all, even in those cases in which the concerns of equality are deemed to outweigh the concern of religion, the harm done to religion is not of catastrophic proportions. No one will ever force a priest to marry anyone, or a church to modify its doctrine, or someone wishing to express a preference for “traditional marriage” to shut up. In all these discussions on same-sex marriages, it’s important to keep things in perspective. Hysteric reactions on either side aren’t helpful at all. Compared to other rights violations, this problem is a minor one.

same-sex marriage

(source)

Much of this concerns discrimination in general, not just discrimination in the application of the right to marry. It just happens to be the case that the ongoing efforts to reduce marriage discrimination seem to cultivate the fears of many religious people that anti-discrimination laws will impose even further restrictions on religious liberty when same-sex marriage is recognized by law. These fears, however, are not substantiated by the evidence of countries or states which have, sometimes long ago, recognized same-sex marriage. Another reason to put things in perspective, something which is clearly captured by this quote:

While marriage and religious belief are one creature in the minds of many people, they are separate things in the law. Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism, for example, refuse to recognize secular divorce. But few argue that we should refuse to let people divorce for this reason. One can be divorced under the law but married in the eyes of the church. The statuses can be separated without a diminution of religious liberty. And nobody thinks that this de-linking of the two constitutes official oppression or the obliteration of religious freedom. Similarly, in principle, it should be possible to have a regime in which same-sex couples are married under the law but not married in the eyes of a given religion – all without extinguishing religious faith. Dale Carpenter (source)

Standard

19 thoughts on “Religion and Human Rights (13): Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty, How Much Can We Discriminate?

  1. Pingback: Human Rights Facts (118): Public Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage « P.A.P. Blog - Politics, Art and Philosophy

  2. Pingback: Human Rights Quote (123): Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty « P.A.P. Blog – Politics, Art and Philosophy

  3. Pingback: The Universality of Human Rights « P.A.P. Blog – Politics, Art and Philosophy

  4. koolau says:

    I don’t understand why any ban on gay marriage is discrimination?

    The same marriage rules are applied equally to all men and women in the USA.

    A gay is free to marry a woman and a lesbian is free to marry a man. There is no discrimination since the same rules are applied equally no matter what sex, sexual orientation, race or disability…

    Maybe I’m confused with my reasoning, so can someone explain it with a similar example?

  5. Pingback: Human Rights Cartoon (22): Gay Marriage « P.A.P. Blog – Politics, Art and Philosophy

  6. Pingback: Homophobia, A Collection of Images « P.A.P. Blog – Politics, Art and Philosophy

  7. Pingback: Human Rights Facts (151): U.S. Public Opinion on Homosexuality « P.A.P. Blog – Human Rights Etc.

  8. Pingback: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics (23): The Omitted Variable Bias, Ctd. « P.A.P. Blog – Human Rights Etc.

  9. Pingback: Human Rights Maps (40): Same Sex Marriages in Europe and the U.S. « P.A.P. Blog – Human Rights Etc.

  10. Dan says:

    koolau

    Your argument is the same flawed argument used to justify bans on interracial marriage. White men can’t marry black women and black men can marry white women, therefore it is applied equally and is therefore not discrimination. The U.S supreme court found that argument was wrong and overturned it in 1967. Applying discrimination evenly does not make it right.

    Your argument could be taken in a sexist light. Mary wants to marry Jill but cant because she is a women but John can marry Jill because he is a man. Both Mary and John want to marry Jill but Mary is banned from the possibility of marrying Jill because she happens to be a women.

  11. Pingback: The Proper Role of Religion in a Democracy « P.A.P. Blog – Human Rights Etc.

  12. Pingback: Human Rights Facts (194): Increasing Numbers of People Live in Jurisdictions Where Same-Sex Marriage is Legal | P.a.p.-Blog, Human Rights Etc.

  13. Pingback: Why Do We Need Human Rights? (29): Human Rights as Expressions of Human Duties in Early Protestant Thinking | P.a.p.-Blog | Human Rights Etc.

  14. Garret Biehle says:

    Disclosure: I am Christian and gay. I also managed to get married in California during that brief period of time when it was legal.
    I agree with almost all of the points in the article. I do think that religious institutions should be able to practice their beliefs even if discriminatory as long as they do not accept government funds. Thus I think a Christian adoption agency operating separately from the government should be allowed to set its own rules about the acceptability of couples allowed to adopt. Gay couples always have the recourse of going to an adoption agency sponsored by the government. There will always be enough children waiting to be adopted. Oh, if you are wanting a single-race, non-drug-addicted, able-bodied baby straight out of the womb, they cannot get enough of those.
    My partner and I have fostered six teenage boys, three of those long term. If you are willing to take on a teenager, the foster agency will call you in a matter of weeks, whether you be gay or straight.

  15. Pingback: Venäläinen seksiin ja thaityttö siivoamaan kotia

  16. Pingback: What Are Human Rights? (47): A Hostile Symbiosis | P.a.p.-Blog, Human Rights Etc.

  17. Pingback: Religion and Human Rights (31): Polygamy, Right or Rights Violation? | P.a.p.-Blog, Human Rights Etc.

  18. Pingback: Religion and Human Rights (31): Polygamy, Right or Rights Violation? | AWAKE NAIJA!

  19. Pingback: Human Rights, Pareto Improvements, and a Difference Principle | P.a.p.-Blog // Human Rights Etc.

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