On Monday, after three days of debate and 39 hours of filibuster by Democratic state senators, the Missouri Senate voted on and approved a proposed amendment to the state constitution which would protect religious groups that refuse to facilitate same-sex marriages, according to a March 9 New York Times article. Before becoming official, the bill must pass the state Senate once more and then pass the state House. This proposed amendment highlights the constitutional struggle between those who claim same-sex marriages are an affront to their First Amendment religious freedom and the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. Do you think this proposed state amendment is constitutional, and what is the best way for the First Amendment and Obergefell v. Hodges to coexist?

Paul Sindberg ’18

The best preschool in my hometown was operated in cooperation with the local church. The thought that my children could be denied access to good education because they have two dads is enough to convince me that if this bill is constitutional, the Constitution is no gold standard for morality. As Maria Chappelle-Nadal and her fellow Democrats argued on the floor of the Missouri Senate, this bill’s terms stretch beyond allowing religious figures to deny marriages to same-sex couples. This bill allows any organization or business to deny service to LGBT people on religious grounds. The homeless youth shelter in my hometown was also operated by a local church, and 40% of homeless youth are LGBT. According to StartClass.com, of the top 10 preschools in Missouri, five have religious affiliations. Any amendment which would preclude my child’s access to education is in violation of my right to liberty. The First Amendment and Obergefell v. Hodges can coexist just fine: It’s the old white men using the Bible to justify their absurd fear of my people that needs to go. State Senator Bob Onder, I’m looking at you.

Paul Sindberg ’18 is the Treasurer of Brandeis Democrats. He is also the Class of 2018 Senator and an Executive Senator in the Student Union.

Laura Tretiakova ’18

The separation of church and state implies that the state cannot legislate how any religious group practices their religion. While Obergefell v. Hodges guarantees same-sex couples the same legal rights and protections as opposite-sex couples under the law, it cannot force religious groups to hold same-sex marriage ceremonies. However, personal religious views should not allow people that represent non-religious institutions to discriminate against same-sex couples. I understand that being rejected by a religion that one practices can have great emotional and psychological ramifications. The Obergefell v. Hodges syllabus itself argues the importance of marriage in a religious context, while also discussing the freedom of religion. Ultimately, I firmly believe in the separation of church and state, in this and all other issues, and as such I think that religious groups can have control over their own domain but cannot use the excuse of religious views to discriminate in other areas of life.

Laura Tretiakova ’18 is the president of Queer Policy Alliance.

Rev. Matthew Carriker

The proposed Missouri state amendment would shield religious groups from having to facilitate same-sex weddings and allow businesses to refuse services to same-sex couples. The first amendment prohibits any law that impedes the free exercise of religion.  Yet have we not changed our constitution when it has been discriminatory?  While it was constitutional in our country for slavery to exist (justified by religion, no less), today the 13th Amendment outlaws slavery. It was once constitutional in the United States for women not to vote, and for there to be “White only” establishments.  Yet the 19th Amendment did away with gender-based voting discrimination.  The 1964 civil rights act outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Being married to a black woman, I am still shocked that interracial marriage was illegal until the Supreme Court decision of 1967.  I am no legal expert.  But, the fact that this bill could mean denying married gay people housing, employment, social services and schooling rings awfully close to the discrimination of blacks that the civil rights movement sought to change.

Rev. Matthew Carriker is the Protestant Chaplain at Brandeis University.

Frankie Marchan ’19

The same-sex marriage — granting all dependent couples and families identical civil liberties — sanctioned by Obergefell v. Hodges is a civil union, which does not necessarily fit into every religious definition of marriage. Some religious groups define marriage as the union between a man and a woman, and this is usually associated with the procreative formation of families. A religious group should not be forced to facilitate a marriage that does not fit within their traditional definition of marriage. However, it is imperative that same-sex couples be treated with the same respect and privileges with which an opposite-sex couple married outside the specific religion would be treated. Everyone deserves the same respect. The tension between the First Amendment and Obergefell v. Hodges is primarily one of semantics, and, if considered respectfully, should not pose more of a problem than the coexistence of multiple religious groups within a secular state.

Frankie Marchan ’19 is a member of the Brandeis Catholic Student Organization.

Holly Rutledge ’16

In my opinion, the proposed Missouri state amendment is unfair and would not be constitutional. While the first amendment guarantees the right to free exercise of religion, I feel that a line must be drawn when religion or personal beliefs begin to infringe on the rights of other citizens. If this amendment passes, it would allow religious expression to be used as an excuse to legally discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation. I feel that this amendment would impede the advancement of the equal rights of all Americans. To quote Justice Ginsburg in her dissenting Burwell v. Hobby Lobby opinion, “suppose an employer’s sincerely held religious belief is offended by health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage, or according women equal pay for substantially similar work?” This amendment could set a dangerous and discriminatory precedent.

Holly Rutledge ’16 is a legal studies minor and an associate editor for the Brandeis University Law Journal.