A bill to protect Florida clergy from conducting marriage ceremonies that violate their belief is moving forward. The next stop for the House measure is the chamber’s floor.
The First Amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the freedom to practice their religions. And experts say that constitutional protection applies church leaders who may choose not to conduct a marriage that violates their beliefs. But Rep. Larry Metz (R-Yalaha) says he’s not sure that’s enough.
“It is clear that some churches and pastors who sincerely refuse to perform a marriage ceremony will be sued. And activists when they go after them in court will choose their court venues and their defendants carefully. So in order to ensure that we have protection we need to pass this bill. Without the bill, Florida pastors who are sued will insure very exorbitant attorney’s fees,” Metz says.
Metz is talking about a bill sponsored by Rep. Scott Plakon (R-Longwood). The measure would protect churches and clergy from lawsuits when they decline to participate in a marriage.
"This is a conscience protection bill. It’s designed to ensure that pastors, clergy members and churches are not required to solemnize marriages or related ceremonies that might violate their sincerely held religious beliefs," Plakon says.
But members of the LGBT or Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community feel the measure is directly targeting them. Carlos Smith represents the organization Equality Florida.
“It has become needlessly divisive and for what purpose? The sponsor has already acknowledged that there are no known cases where pastors have been sued for refusing to marry same-sex couples. This is a quadruple layer or protection,” Smith says.
And it is because of that divisiveness that some religious leaders like Miami Beach Pastor Harold Thompson are speaking out against the bill.
“It will not protect pastors. They’re already protected. But what it will do is create discrimination and classism. It will hurt individuals,” Thompson says.
And Thompson isn’t the only person who shared that sentiment with the House Judiciary Committee Thursday. Clair Watson Chase an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church says she is one of the people the measure, in her words, “purports to protect.”
“And I am here to tell you, I don’t need it and I don’t want it. I don’t need it because as we have established the first amendment definitely protects me," Watson Chase says. "The constitution isn’t going to be changed on this issue. Religious freedom is a cornerstone of being an American. I feel safe. Okay?”
But during Thursday’s committee hearing, for each person who spoke against the bill another urged lawmakers to pass it. Armando Reeves is a pastor in Clearwater and represents the Pinellas County Hispanic Pastor Association.
“I’m here to ask you to vote yes for HB 43 for this bill and I have to tell you on behalf of the pastors that we represent, we need it and we want it,” Reeves says.
The measure passed the House Judiciary committee. Its next stop is consideration on the chamber’s floor. Meanwhile, a similar measure in the Senate has passed its first committee. It’s scheduled for a hearing in its next committee next week.
