Letters to the Editor:
Officials Are Free From Performing Civil Unions
Len Deo, President of the NJ Family Policy Council

A response is required to those who think they are justified in forcing NJ mayors to perform civil unions (AC Press “Voice of the People” (1/19/07).  This is America and our constitution guarantees freedom of religious expression, even to civil servants.

The first amendment free exercise clause gives all citizens the right to exercise their religion.  Therefore they may choose not to condone civil unions.  Likewise, this right extends to civil servants and if they feel something is morally wrong, they can not be forced to violate their deeply held religious beliefs.  However, according to the state attorney general, if a civil servant chooses to exercise their conscience by not performing civil unions, that official would also have to forego marrying heterosexual couples.  The fact that civil unions are now legal, coupled with the state’s anti-discrimination law, a civil servant can not favor performing marriages couples over performing civil unions.
However, if your desire is too force individuals to give up their religious freedom – move to Canada.  One recent example reported in the Feb. 7th National Post involved a Knights of Columbus chapter in B.C.  The Roman Catholic charitable group cited Church teaching as the reason for refusing to rent their hall to a lesbian couple for a wedding party, but they were fined for "hurting the feelings" of two lesbians.  Canada has a different constitution, has legalized same-sex “marriage”, and passed additional “hate crimes” laws which are removing freedom of religious expression.  This is not an example we should follow.

As a result, their “Human Rights” Tribunal has been busy with costly, exhausting cases involving homosexuals forcing religious individuals to go against the tenants of their faith or to publicly silence them.

Word Count: 251 w/o yellow, 283

Additional info:
First, within New Jersey’s anti-discrimination law, there is specific language that talks
about one’s "creed". This SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS CHURCHES OR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS FROM GOING AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS IN CIVIL MATTERS.  FOR EX. THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HIRE PRACTICING HOMOSEXUALS.  If you were to require someone to set aside their religious freedom in order to accommodate someone else’s desire for a civil union, a case could probably be made for reverse discrimination!  What law or document says the right to a civil union is paramount to someone’s religious freedom?  On what basis would you then not be discriminating against religious individuals, particularly when there would be plenty of other willing parties to perform the union? 

(JUST LIKE SCHOOLS WITH RELIGION/HOLIDAYS, they can not be hostile to religion by disallowing Christian songs, but if they choose to do so, that can’t have ANY religious songs.ASK Demetrios again).  SO THE LEGAL LIMITATION IS AS DESCRIBED.  Therefore people of faith are free to exercise their faith within those legal limits.

back to articles