Religious liberty and SSM in New Jersey

As MOJ readers are probably aware, Tom Berg and I, along with several other law professors -- experts in religious freedom and family law -- have submitted letters to legislators and other political leaders in several jurisdictions that are considering adopting same-sex-marriage.  The point of this letter has not been to weigh in on the merits of that move, but instead to urge that these jurisdictions include meaningful protections for religious freedom (institutional and individual) in any such adoption.  The text of the most recent letter, addressed to the Chair of the Judicial Committee in New Jersey, is available here.  Here is the introduction:

We write to urge the New Jersey legislature to ensure that any bill legalizing same-sex marriage—such as the "Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriage Act" (or "New Jersey Marriage Bill")1—does not infringe the religious liberty of organizations and individuals who have a traditional view of marriage. It is not only possible to legalize same-sex marriage without infringing on religious liberty, it is the wise course. The contentious debate in Maine, California and elsewhere surrounding same-sex marriage proves the wisdom of constructive, good-faith attempts both to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriage and to protect religious liberty for conscientious objectors. Unfortunately, the current version of the New Jersey Marriage Bill provides less protection for religious liberty than the same-sex marriage legislation of every other state to address the issue.

This letter analyzes the potential effects of same-sex marriage on religious conscience in New Jersey and proposes a solution to address the conflicts: a specific religious liberty protection that can be added to the New Jersey Marriage Bill, clarifying that people and organizations may refuse to provide services for a wedding if doing so would violate deeply held beliefs, while ensuring that the refusal creates no undue hardship for the couple seeking the service. We write not to support or oppose same-sex marriage in New Jersey. Rather, our aim is to define a "middle way" where both equality in marriage and religious liberty can be honored and respected. . . .

Another letter, signed by our own Michael Perry and others, endorses the analysis and conclusions set out in the letter that Tom and I signed, but makes clear the authors' support for the adoption of same-sex-marriage.