Ala. House passes bill targeting same-sex marriage

The Alabama House of Representatives Thursday passed legislation that would prevent those empowered to officiate weddings from being forced to conduct ceremonies to which they have religious objections, or to be sued over their refusal.

The 69 to 25 vote fell down party lines, with Republicans voting for it and most Democrats voting against it. In the local delegation, Democratic Reps. Alvin Holmes, John Knight and Thad McClammy, all of Montgomery, voted against the bill. Rep. Reed Ingram, R-Montgomery, voted for it.

Although the bill does not directly address same-sex marriage, opponents said the legislation targeted gay and lesbian couples and could allow religiously-affiliated organizations, such as hospitals, to deny benefits and services to same-sex couples.

"We're here because we want to condemn a population we don't understand and we don't like," said Rep. Patricia Todd, D-Birmingham, the only openly gay member of the Alabama Legislature. "It doesn't change anything, but it will help (lawmakers) in districts show they will stand up against same sex-sex marriage."

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Jim Hill, R-Odenville, said the legislation -- introduced amid a statewide controversy over the legality of same-sex marriage -- was not about same-sex marriage.

"I received several phone calls from constituents in St. Clair County, primarily ministers and judges who asked me whether the mere fact an individual is authorized to perform a marriage ceremony (means) are they compelled to perform a marriage ceremony," he said in introducing the bill.

The legislation says "no church, synagogue, society or religious organization" can be sued over a refusal to provide accommodations or services "related to the recognitions, solemnization or celebration of a marriage."

Both Hill and critics said that current law does not force ministers to conduct marriages they oppose. But language surrounding recognition and accommodation, say opponents, could allow religiously-affiliated organizations like hospitals to deny services to same-sex couples, like visitation rights.

Rep. Christopher England, D-Tuscaloosa, said the religious organization definition could extend to employees of that organization and lead to a host of denials. During the debate, England offered an asked Hill if he would accept an amendment aimed focusing specifically on religious beliefs.

"If this bill focuses on a person's right to say no due to religious beliefs, then how come we can't amend out 'religious organizations' and 'recognition?'" he asked.

Hill said "I don't want to do that," but declined to elaborate his reasons.

Opponents also hammered the need for the bill, noting repeatedly that no minister or judge had been forced to officiate a wedding they objected to.

"We're down here legislating morality, and we have a $700 million gap in the General Fund budget," said House Minority Leader Craig Ford, D-Gadsden.

As has been the case early in the 2015 session, supporters of the House legislation said very little. Rep. Mike Ball, R-Huntsville, said he believed the debate was making "a mountain out of a molehill" and that the bill would not be disruptive.

"There's been a lot of confusion and more confusion to come," House Speaker Mike Hubbard, R-Auburn, said after the vote. "This simply clarifies that if you are a judge or a religious official, you can not be compelled to conduct a ceremony against your religious beliefs."

Todd said the bill would lead to lawsuits, and said she would continue to fight it. The representative added that she was confident that a U.S. Supreme Court ruling expected later this year would clearly establish the constitutionality of same-sex marriage in Alabama and throughout the nation.

"I know you're going to go back home and say, 'Look what we did to those gay people,'" she said. "Well, you didn't do anything."