The Senate Committee on State Affairs met at the Capitol Wednesday to talk about religious freedom in Texas. Senate Republicans aim to protect the religious liberties of those who oppose same-sex marriage with new laws in 2017.
Civil rights activists argue the added protections would open the door to discrimination, especially for gays and lesbians in Texas.
“It is a huge danger to suggest that the United States’ Supreme Court rulings are optional,” said Kathy Miller, President of the Texas Freedom Network.
The U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in July of 2015 but the Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton does not think court clerks or judges should be forced to perform weddings that violate their “sincerely-held religious beliefs.”
Clergy members in Texas can refuse to marry same-sex couples—and Paxton believes other officiates, public officials, deserve the same right. Paxton wants to ensure that Texans are not “forced” to go against their religious beliefs and marry same-sex couples.
The chair of the Senate Committee, Republicans Senator Joan Huffman of Houston seemed to support the AG’s stance. Huffman said she thinks there are public officials who could be called upon to violate their religious beliefs. “And as a legislator, if there is a way for us to accommodate that and still, you know, follow the law set by the Supreme Court, then I think it’s our obligation to do so,” Huffman said.
In response to Huffman, a representative from the AG’s office testified the state could add protections for those who oppose same-sex marriage and still abide by the Supreme Court ruling. He said, “If performing a wedding would violate their sincerely-held religious beliefs, but there’s a Justice of the Peace next to them and the government office wouldn’t….As long as they can marry, there is no violation of anyone’s rights.”
The legal and policy director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, Rebecca Robertson, told the committee that people who act on behalf of the government are not free to impose their own religious beliefs. “What we are hearing proposed now would give government officials in Texas the authority to opt out of that Supreme Court decision and to roll back on an important stride to equality for gay and lesbian Americans,” Robertson said.
She pointed out that the ACLU fights for civil and religious liberties in Texas. “Religious freedom is a fundamental value in our country, one of the bedrocks of our democracy, but it has never meant that the individual has the right to use her personal religious beliefs to harm others or discriminate against others,” Robertson said. “We don’t think that Texas ought to go that way.”
The two others called to testify disagreed with Robertson—they suggested “targeted pieces of legislation.” Laws that outline specific situations in which a person or business owner can legally deny services, based on their religious beliefs. Both men said it would reduce the number of potential lawsuits in the future and cut costs of lengthy court battles.
Paxton released a statement after Wednesday’s interim hearing to applaud the committee’s efforts. “…Protect the people of Texas from punishment for simply expressing their sincerely-held religious beliefs,” Paxton wrote.
Civil rights activists argue there is already a balance between protecting religious liberties and preventing discrimination.
Passed in 1999, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, states the government cannot “substantially burden” the practice of religion. The law also includes provisions that prevent the misuse of RFRA to disregard or trump an individual or group’s civil rights.
Adding amendments to strengthen that law, Roberston said, would throw the state out of balance. “Having to follow a law that you disagree with that prevents you from discriminating against other people, that’s not a religious liberties violation,” Robertson said.
Huffman said she anticipates bills to add religious freedom protections will be introduced in the 2017 legislative session.
Miller called it a “radical” attempt to redefine the meaning of religious liberties. “Pregnant women who are unmarried, divorced couples, inter-religious marriage and people of other faiths,” Miller said the laws could be used against many people, not just the LGBT community.
“The harm that could be caused under the name under religious freedom is the most tragic thing about this new campaign,” said Miller.
Paxton, in a written statement, described why he believes the state needs to do more to protect religious liberty in Texas. Paxton wrote, “The Religious liberty is the First Freedom established in the Bill of Rights, and the moral bedrock upon which our nation has been built.”
