Dan Patrick’s spokesman said the lieutenant governor wants “to further protect religious freedoms.” Patrick asked GOP Sen. Craig Estes to offer a bill saying clergy, churches and religious groups don’t have to be involved in gay weddings if they don’t want to be.
By ROBERT T. GARRETT, Dallas News
AUSTIN — A late push by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick to have the Texas Senate leap to the defense of clergy and religious institutions on same-sex marriage issues has given social conservatives new hope that Texas lawmakers will push back on federal court victories by gays and lesbians.
With just more than a month to go in the session, only three of 23 conservative bills on gay-related issues have taken the first step toward passage, getting out of committee in a chamber. Each advanced from a House panel.
On Tuesday, the same day the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about whether same-sex marriage should be a constitutionally protected right in all 50 states, Patrick jumped into the fray.
Patrick asked Sen. Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls, to introduce a bill saying clergy, churches and religious organizations don’t have to be involved in gay weddings if they don’t want to be. It is similar to a measure in the House.
The Senate quickly suspended rules and bill-filing deadlines to rush the bill to a Thursday hearing by the chamber’s State Affairs Committee.
Democrats, though, used a procedural device called a “tag” to delay the hearing on Estes’ bill for 48 hours. Committee Chairwoman Joan Huffman, R-Houston, has reset the hearing for Monday.
The dust-up rekindled hope for social conservatives who have struggled all session to pass bills resisting a possible Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage and paring back the reach of ordinances passed by cities such as Plano and Dallas barring discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
“Obviously, the legislative session is not over,” said Jonathan Saenz, president of Texas Values, which opposes same-sex marriage.
Critics said the bills are at best symbolic, and could have pernicious effects. For instance, a religiously affiliated hospital might be empowered to ignore end-of-life care instructions that a same-sex partner wants a mate to make sure are carried out, said Kathy Miller of the left-leaning group Texas Freedom Network.
Miller and Rebecca Robertson, legal and policy director of the ACLU of Texas, said clergy already enjoy state and federal protections against having to perform marriages that would violate conscience. They said Estes’ bill could be used to justify discrimination in secular matters such as employment and public accommodations.
Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, a San Antonio Democrat who alerted colleagues and reporters to Patrick’s move, questioned why Patrick and Estes moved so late.
“This is a dog whistle to the bigots and the zealots that want to promote their hate and try to mask it as religion,” Martinez Fischer said.
Estes, though, said critics are using “inflammatory rhetoric” to stymie needed legislation.
“No one should be punished for refusing to perform marriages that directly violate their faith,” he said.
Patrick spokesman Keith Elkins said Patrick wants “to further protect religious freedoms.”
Rep. Scott Sanford, a McKinney Republican who wrote the House version, said he’s trying to keep pastors and religious institutions from having to spend money on lawyers to defend their decisions not to facilitate gay marriages.
“These bills do not carry a sword, they’re just a shield,” he said.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/state-politics/20150430-patrick-churches-clergy-need-protection-if-court-upholds-gay-marriage.ece