Though legal experts on a July 10 panel disagreed about how the California same-sex marriage law will impact the freedom to express religious beliefs, they all agreed it will ultimately change the definition of marriage.

In a presentation hosted by the Family Research Council in Washington, an ideologically diverse panel of legal experts debated the national political ramifications of the May 15 California Supreme Court's 4-3 ruling that same-sex couples have the right to have the state designate their civil unions as marriages, essentially making marriage legal in that state for gay couples.

While the more conservative legal experts on the panel said they believe that if the California law isn't turned back religious freedoms will be dangerously compromised nationwide, the more moderate and liberal law professionals said same-sex marriage advocates and religious liberty supporters can coexist if both groups respect each other's rights.

"They can coexist if both sides are not taking 'it's my way or the highway approach,'" said Nathan J. Diament, director of the Institute for Public Affairs of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. "Part of the challenge here is we have very powerful interest groups who have veto power over reasonable compromise. We need to find a way to insulate these issues, or everyone is going to lose out."

Some members of the panel were concerned the ripple effect of the California same-sex marriage law would result in priests and laypeople being sued for publicly stating their moral objections to homosexual acts, court clerks being forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies despite their religious opposition, and medical and insurance professionals having their state licenses revoked if they refuse to assist gay couples on religious grounds.

Benjamin Bull of the Alliance Defense Fund said he feared that states would word their hate-crime laws to make it a criminal offense for citizens "to speak out against homosexual acts."

"Right now the First Amendment affords you the right to be wrong," said Kevin J. "Seamus" Hasson, founder of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. "It's just a matter of time. There are radical homosexual organizations working hard. It could force universities --- regardless of their religious traditions --- to make university housing available to same-sex couples. It could force a Christian bookstore owner (as an employer) to have to offer insurance (coverage) to same-sex couples."

Considering California's size and its influence on the rest of the U.S., that state's same-sex marriage law could be a "springboard" for the gay marriage movement in other states, said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

Currently the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prevents states or the federal government from making laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion, but Teresa Stanton Collett, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in St. Paul, Minn., expressed concern that these rights would be compromised if the California law remains in effect.

"There is a collision course that is coming," Collett said. "We're seeing increased pressure in society to propagandize on this issue."

However, the historical strength of the First Amendment makes it very unlikely that clergy in any religion would be forced by the government to perform same-sex marriages or be prosecuted for preaching from the pulpit their objection to homosexual behavior, said Chai R. Feldblum, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, who described herself as a nonpracticing Orthodox Jew and a practicing lesbian.

She said she agrees with the right of a town in New Jersey to revoke the property tax-exempt status on a pavilion that a religious organization refused to rent to a same-sex couple who wanted to hold a reception after their civil union ceremony.

But she also said she disagrees with forcing a county clerk to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony if he or she has a moral objection to homosexual acts.

"But gay people need legal protection for their relationships," Feldblum said. "I don't believe that civil marriage should have any impact on religious liberties. It will take a lot in this country to have this conversation and we will not always agree. But we should be able to compromise."

---CNS