Article I, Section 3 of the Indiana Constitution:
No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.
I couldn’t find much of anything in the debates on this one. Once again, however, this provision emphasizes the concern of the delegates to ensure that the government didn’t get in the business of telling people how to worship.
What if the free exercise of religious opinion happens to be:
• Disapproval of the gay lifestyle?
• Endorsement of a political candidate from the pulpit?
• Calling for Holy Jihad?
• Libelous slander?
• Ponzi scheming?
etc.
• Encouraging the immediate consumption of grape Kool-Aid?
(Makes for interesting Bible-study group discussion.)
• Showing SuperBowl on big-screen TV during church service?
“Or inerfere with the rights of conscience.”
Personally I am still debating my views on this, as is my denomination; but the obvious question comes to mind, “What about pastors who wish to bless the union of a same-sex couple?” Does the state recognize such actions? If not, does this go against the intent of this article? (Yeah if you can’t tell, I am the socially liberal Lutheran).
I would say that the State can’t interfere with a pastor who wants to (or doesn’t want to) bless same-sex unions. However, the State is not bound to confer (or deny) the legal rights of marriage based on the pastor’s conscience. But, that’s just a gut reaction, no research, soon after I’ve woken up with no coffee in me. So, probably 70/30 chance of me being wrong.
implied “as long as it doesn’t infringe on the health and wellbeing of others?”
I think these relate to the very definition of “matters of conscience.” Regardless of which side of the issues we come down on, we really *don’t* want the State weighing in on these. Hmm… maybe we should require our lawmakers to undergo an annual review of the Constitution.
Clarification: determining whether something is legal or illegal is not the same as legislating how you should *feel* about it. Certainly sex out of wedlock is legal (even in Indiana! uh… isn’t it?) but many organized religions disapprove of it. Fine. Not sure why we can’t apply the same reasoning to gay-marriage.
Would this maybe come up in the issue of hospitals refusing to provide Plan-B? Or pharmacists refusing to sell it?
Or… if gay (civil) marriage was legal, how about a Justice of the Peace (whatever that is) refusing to perform it?
The issue of free speech from the pulpit is already impinged by election laws or IRS rules that would snatch away a church’s exemption status as punishment.
Also at issue is HR 1592 that would effectively make criticizing homosexuality an actionable hate crime if it caused gays emotional distress.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1592
That implies that the Church has some sort of entitlement to a tax exemption. Free speech isn’t free, to paraphrase a slogan.
Kenn, one thing unmentioned so far is that any federal law (even a federal regulation) trumps a state constitutional right. That comes under the federal Supremacy Clause. Therefore, your complaint about the federal law is a bit off the mark regarding a state constitutional provision.
I would like to point out one other thing. These are rights reserved to us which the government of Indiana cannot intrude upon. There can be a great discussion about the wall between church and state under the federal Bill of Rights but I think that discussion is a smaller one under the Indiana Bill of Rights. You take all of the protections under Indiana’s Bill of Rights and it looks like religion is pretty much protected from the government. Likewise, we cannot establish a Hoosier theocracy.
I don’t think HR 1592 at all criminalizes speech that might cause emotional distress. It criminalizes/provides harsher penalties/provides federal law enforcement support for bodily injury crimes or felonies motivated, among other things, by the victim’s sexual orientation. Emotional distress clearly doesn’t qualify under the act…
Kenn, I’m with Glenn on this…
While one assumes “a violent act causing death or bodily injury” would indeed cause emotional distress, I don’t anything in HR 1592 that supports your comment.