One wonders if Senator David Osmek (R-Mound) has even bothered to read SF925, his colleague's bill extending the freedom to marry.
The McLeod County Chronicle reports in Sen. Osmek traces his leadership desires to time in Biscay/Glencoe:
Osmek took office in January, so he hasn’t had a lot of experience at the state level as yet, he told the [class of high school] students. But Osmek was still more than willing to field their questions about a variety of political issues, starting with gay marriage.
“To me, it’s a First Amendment issue,” said Osmek, referring to the separation of church and state.
If the state endorses gay marriage, Osmek fears, it may lead down a “slippery slope” to the state forcing churches to perform and recognize gay marriage, whether gay marriage is part of a church’s theology or not.
He must have missed this part of the senate bill. It's right at the top:
363A.26 EXEMPTION BASED ON RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATION. Nothing in this chapter prohibits any religious association, religious corporation, or religious society that is not organized for private profit, or any institution organized for educational purposes that is operated, supervised, or controlled by a religious association, religious corporation, or religious society that is not organized for private profit, from:
(1) limiting admission to or giving preference to persons of the same religion or denomination; or
(2) in matters relating to sexual orientation, taking any action with respect to education, employment, housing and real property, or use of facilities. This clause shall not apply to secular business activities engaged in by the religious association, religious corporation, or religious society, the conduct of which is unrelated to the religious and educational purposes for which it is organized.; or
(3) taking any action with respect to the provision of goods, services, facilities, or accommodations directly related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage that is in violation of its religious beliefs.
Or maybe this language in the bill:
Subd. 2. Refusal to solemnize; protection of religious doctrine. Each religious organization, association, or society has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine, policy, teachings, and beliefs regarding who may marry within that faith. A licensed or ordained member of the clergy or other person authorized by section 517.04 to solemnize a marriage is not subject to any fine, penalty, or civil liability for failing or refusing to solemnize a marriage for any reason.
“I’m afraid it will eventually inflict on religious institutions,” said Osmek. “The pilgrims came here for religious freedom, and we need to respect that.”
Osmek said that domestic partners are already given benefits by many businesses and corporations, and feels it best left to the private sector to create its own definition of domestic partnerships. . . .
So businesses get to define two committed people's relationship? Would any married couple accept that?
Photo: Osmek in the Glencoe-Silver Lake classroom. Via the McLeod County Chronicle.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
Comments