Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:20:39.258Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The First Amendment, Varieties of Neutrality, and Same-Sex Marriage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2009

Emily R. Gill
Emily R. Gill*
Affiliation:
Bradley University
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Emily R. Gill, Bradley University, Peoria, IL 61614. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article compares the difficulty in achieving a public stance of neutrality toward sexual orientation with the difficulty in achieving neutrality toward religious belief. Strict separation treats religion as a private commitment, with firm limits on government cooperation with religion and strong protection for free exercise. Formal neutrality discounts religion as a basis either for conferring special benefits or for withholding generally available benefits. Positive neutrality attends to the practical effects of public policy, sometimes requiring an abandonment of nonestablishment in favor of policies that allow for greater protection for free exercise of religion. I argue that none of these forms of neutrality establishes impartiality regarding either religious belief or same-sex marriage. First, Michael McConnell's “disestablishment” approach to sexual orientation and same-sex marriage instantiates are neither neutrality nor civic equality. Second, while formal neutrality may render an establishment more inclusive, it may exclude those whose beliefs and practices are not deemed in accordance with public purposes. Third, although positive neutrality may remove burdens from same-sex couples whose conscientious convictions may impel them to marry, it may still favor some kinds of practices over others.

Type
Articles
Information
Politics and Religion , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , December 2009 , pp. 353 - 377
Copyright
Copyright © Religion and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Babst, Gordon Albert. 2002. Liberal Constitutionalism, Marriage, and Sexual Orientation: A Contemporary Case for Disestablishment. New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Brudney, Daniel. 2005. “On Noncoercive Establishment.” Political Theory 33:812–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 1990.Google Scholar
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 1947.Google Scholar
Feldman, Noah. 2006. Divided by God: American's Church-State Problem–and What We Should Do About It. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Goodstein, Laurie. 1997. “Church Groups Urge Use of Widened Welfare Law.” New York Times, December 14:A16.Google Scholar
Gutmann, Amy. 2003. Identity in Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivers, Gregg. 1998. “American Jews and the Equal Treatment Principle,” In Equal Treatment of Religion in a Pluralistic Society, ed. Monsma, Stephen V., and Soper, Christopher J.. Grand Rapids, MI: William Eerdmans, 158–178.Google Scholar
Josephson, Jyl. 2005. “Citizenship, Same-Sex Marriage, and Feminist Critiques of Marriage.” Perspectives on Politics 3:269–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kmiec, Douglas W. 2008. “Same-Sex Marriage and the Coming Antidiscrimination Campaigns Against Religion.” In Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, ed. Laycock, Douglas, Picarello, Anthony R. Jr., and Wilson, Robin Fretwell. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 103–127.Google Scholar
Laycock, Douglas. 1990. “Formal, Substantive, and Disaggregated Neutrality Toward Religion.” De Paul Law Review 39:993–1038.Google Scholar
Laycock, Douglas. 2008. “Afterword.” In Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, ed. Laycock, Douglas, Picarello, Anthony R. Jr., and Wilson, Robin Fretwell. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 189–207.Google Scholar
Lehr, Valerie. 1999. Queer Family Values: Debunking the Myth of the Nuclear Family. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 1971.Google Scholar
McConnell, Michael W. 1992. “Religious Freedom at a Crossroads.” University of Chicago Law Review 59:115–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, Michael W. 1998. “What Would It Mean to Have a ‘First Amendment’ for Sexual Orientation?” In Sexual Orientation and Human Rights in American Religious Discourse, ed. Olyan, Saul M., and Nussbaum, Martha C.. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 239–259.Google Scholar
Monsma, Stephen V. 2002. “Concluding Observations,” In Church-State Relations in Crisis: Debating Neutrality, ed. Monsma, Stephen V.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 261–270.Google Scholar
Muñoz, Vincent Phillip. 2003. “James Madison's Principle of Religious Liberty.” American Political Science Review 97:17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha C. 2008. Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America's Tradition of Religious Equality. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Rauch, Jonathan. 2005. Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America. New York, NY: Owl Books of Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 1870.Google Scholar
Richards, David A.J. 1999. Identity and the Case for Gay Rights: Race, Gender, and Religion as Analogies. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Richards, David A.J. 2005. The Case for Gay Rights: Bowers to Lawrence and Beyond. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Jeffrey, and Badertscher, Nancy. 2003. “Bias Out if Groups Receive State Aid.” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, October 10, E1.Google Scholar
Stevenson, Richard W. 2002. “Bush Will Allow Religious Groups to Receive U.S. Aid.” New York Times, December 13, A28.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Andrew. 1996. Virtually Normal: An Argument about Homosexuality. New York, NY: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Weber, Paul. 2003. “The Bad in the Faith-Based Initiative.” In Faith-Based Initiatives and the Bush Administration, ed. Formicola, Jo Renee, Segers, Mary C., and Weber, Paul. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 63–114.Google Scholar
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 2002.Google Scholar