As conservative religious leaders argued — repeatedly — against the inclusion of gays and lesbians in the state’s nondiscrimination laws in the 1990s and 2000s, they claimed that Maine’s LGBT population was seeking “ special rights.” They made the same argument in opposition to same-sex marriage.
Now, these critics are seeking what truly are special rights of their own. Protection of religious freedom and rights by the U.S. and Maine constitutions and federal and state anti-discrimination laws aren’t enough, they argue in calling for a “Religious Freedom Act” in Maine.
LD 1340, sponsored by Sen. David Burns, R-Whiting, reads very much like the recently passed bill in Indiana that led to such a huge — and potentially economically harmful — backlash that Gov. Mike Pence quickly pledged to amend it.
Indiana’s law drew national condemnation from civil rights groups, gay rights advocates, sports organizations, business leaders and politicians. The national outcry was so fierce that Pence signed a fix to the bill that prevents it from rolling back anti-discrimination laws passed by individual municipalities. The fix, however, does not apply to the majority of Indiana towns and cities that have no such local laws. Indiana has hired a public relations firm to help rebuild its image as a welcoming place in the bill’s aftermath.
Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican, said a similar bill was not necessary in his state, and its sponsor, freshman legislator Erven Nelson, R-Las Vegas, withdrew the bill, saying the state constitution provided enough protections to make further legislative emphasis unnecessary.
Lawmakers in Georgia, led by Republican Gov. Nathan Deal, allowed a similar bill to languish without debate in the final days of their session earlier this month.
Maine does not need the negative attention and ill will this bill will bring — especially because the legislation is not needed. A similar bill failed in the Legislature last year.
Essentially, this year’s version of the legislation would make it harder for state laws that were seen to “burden the exercise of religion” to pass legal muster in court. “Exercise of religion” is loosely defined to include “the ability to act or refuse to act in a manner substantially motivated by a person’s sincerely held religious belief, whether or not the exercise of religion is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.”
Carroll Conley, executive director of the Maine Christian Civic League of Maine, says that such cases would be “exceedingly rare.” So, why does he believe it is needed in Maine? Because of the “recent redefinition of marriage,” Conley says, while also asserting that the bill is not about discriminating against gays and lesbians.
We understand that many in Maine have strong beliefs about marriage that are based in religion. But Maine also has a long tradition of fairness and equality. In November 2012, Maine became the first state where voters, through a citizen initiative campaign — not a court order or a state legislature — said same-sex couples had the right to marry. (Maryland and Washington state followed later the same night.) The law, approved by 53 percent of voters, included protections for clergy, religious denominations, churches and religious institutions that would not perform or host these marriages in violation of their religious beliefs.
Burns’ bill seeks to extend those protections — or, more accurately, the right to discriminate in the name of vague religious beliefs — to individuals and businesses.
Maine should not turn back the clock. There’s simply no need.