occupations and ministries—including running schools, hospitals, nursing homes and other housing
facilities, providing adoption and counseling services, and many others.
So, for example, religious adoption services that place children exclusively with married couples would be
required by law to place children with persons of the same sex who are civilly “married.” Religious
marriage counselors would be denied their professional accreditation for refusing to provide counseling in
support of same-sex “married” relationships. Religious employers who provide special health benefits to
married employees would be required by law to extend those benefits to same-sex “spouses.” Religious
employers would also face lawsuits for taking any adverse employment action—no matter how modest—
against an employee for the public act of obtaining a civil “marriage” with a member of the same sex. This is
not idle speculation, as these sorts of situations have already come to pass.
Even where religious people and groups succeed in avoiding civil liability in cases like these, they would
face other government sanctions—the targeted withdrawal of government co-operation, grants, or other
benefits.
For example, in New Jersey, the state cancelled the tax-exempt status of a Methodist-run boardwalk
pavilion used for religious services because the religious organization would not host a same-sex “wedding”
there. San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social service contracts with the Salvation Army because it
refused to recognize same-sex “domestic partnerships” in its employee benefits policies. Similarly,
Portland, Maine, required Catholic Charities to extend spousal employee benefits to same-sex “domestic
partners” as a condition of receiving city housing and community development funds.
In short, the refusal of these religious organizations to treat a same-sex sexual relationship as if it were a
marriage marked them and their members as bigots, subjecting them to the full arsenal of government
punishments and pressures reserved for racists. These punishments will only grow more frequent and more
severe if civil “marriage” is redefined in additional jurisdictions. For then, government will compel special
recognition of relationships that we the undersigned religious leaders and the communities of faith that we
represent cannot, in conscience, affirm. Because law and government not only coerce and incentivize but
also teach, these sanctions would lend greater moral legitimacy to private efforts to punish those who
defend marriage.
Therefore, we encourage all people of good will to protect marriage as the union between one man and one
woman, and to consider carefully the far-reaching consequences for the religious freedom of all Americans
if marriage is redefined. We especially urge those entrusted with the public good to support laws that
uphold the time-honored definition of marriage, and so avoid threatening the religious freedom of countless
institutions and citizens in this country. Marriage and religious freedom are both deeply woven into the
fabric of this nation.
May we all work together to strengthen and preserve the unique meaning of marriage and the precious gift
of religious freedom.
Sincerely Yours:
