In the final minutes before the vote on the gay marriage bill, State Senator Debra Plowman rose from her seat and delivered a stinging rebuke to those legislators who had criticized people of faith in the debate over gay marriage. She also pointed out that if the ill-advised bill passed, people of faith would be compelled by law to approve of conduct that violates the deepest principles of their faith. Her remarks are reprinted from the Maine Legislative Record.
Today I rise to speak for the people who were not represented here last week: men and women of faith all over the state of Maine. Persons who listened in, and listened to not only our churches and the Word of God, used to say that this is not about religion, and yet it seemed to be all about religion for some people. Since that was brought up, I'm going to bring up a few points.
This bill is about religion. For all the people that will be made happy today there will be many others, who are people of faith, who will find they have no protections in this bill regarding their religious liberties. Four law school professors analyzed, without taking a position on gay marriage whatsoever, the provisions in this legislative document and wrote, 'We write to provide you with an analysis of the effects of this bill on religious liberty. Those effects would be widespread and profound. If it is passed in its current form without adequate religious conscience protections, many religious organizations and individuals will be forced to engage in conduct that violates their deepest religious beliefs; and religious organizations will be limited in crucial aspects of their religious exercise.'
It goes on to say, 'Religious organizations and individuals that conscientiously object to same sex marriage will be labeled as unlawful discriminators under State law, and face a range of penalties at the hands of State agencies and local governments, such as the withdrawal of government benefits or exclusion from government facilities.' All of the conflicts that they list did not exist before this law, or will be significantly intensified after the legalization of same sex marriage. Of course, we cannot predict the outcome of future litigation over these conflicts; and religious liberty advocates will litigate these claims vigorously under any protections available under state and federal law.
At a minimum, however, the volume of new litigation will be immense, and religious liberty advocates can also be expected to sue state and local governments for implementing, or even considering implementing, policies that harm conscientious objectors. On the other side, people who feel they are being discriminated against, will also have the ability to bring suits against the people and businesses of the state of Maine who chose to exercise their religious liberty to conscientiously object.
Today, when you go forward, you are not just making a historical decision based on whether you think people of the same sex should be able to get married. You are making a decision that is not well founded; and you extend rights to people who are not constitutionally protected, and do not have a constitutional right to marriage. If they did, our law saying traditional marriage is between a man and a woman would have been challenged and found unconstitutional. It has not.
Therefore, as you extend these rights, do so very carefully because it is at the expense of the people of faith; and as you go forward you will receive many 'Thank Yous.' You have all enjoyed the 'Thank Yous.' You will also receive calls and visits from your neighbors who are people of faith.
The condemnation that I heard last week was so disturbing I had to not respond that day. There are people who profoundly believe differently. They were referred to as people who could have come for you during the Holocaust. The Catholic Church was denigrated for having persons who you wouldn't want to be your neighbor, absolutely; and people of faith sat by and heard that without a voice in this room. The people in this room, who have a job to defend the religious liberties of others, sat still as well.
That's not my government. My government would have said "Enough." Some of the people out there said "Enough" on both sides. Do you think we appreciate the level of debate that this goes to sometimes? Absolutely not. It hurts people of faith. When I heard the people of the state of Maine, who asked for a referendum, referred to as the mob, the angry mob who chose to choose Jesus over Barabbas, I don't see the people of the state of Maine as an angry mob. I see them as people who want to make a decision. I will tell you that before the angry mob decided what to do, they made one choice. They said, 'We have no king but Caesar.' Well, I only have one God, and it certainly isn't the State of Maine.
