Bill to protect pastors passes Senate, but House fails to act

AUSTIN—Legislation intended to protect ministers from being forced to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies passed the Texas Senate, but the House of Representatives failed to act on the measure before a midnight May 14 deadline.

SB 2065 by Sen. Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls, and HB 3567 by Rep. Scott Sanford, R-McKinney, both stipulate a minister cannot be required to officiate at a marriage ceremony if it violates sincerely held religious beliefs. The companion bills also say refusal to provide services or facilities for such a wedding could not be the basis for civil or criminal action.

Kyle HendersonSB 2065 was assigned to the House State Affairs Committee after HB 3567 died, and within 12 hours it was sent to the House Calendars Committee.

“This bill is flying like a rocket,” said Bee Moorhead, director of Texas Impact, an ecumenical organization that opposes the bill in its present form because connectional churches fear it will prompt a flurry of lawsuits.

During earlier committee hearings, ministers from around the state—including Texas Baptists—testified in support of the legislation, seeking protection against potential discrimination lawsuits.

Protection from lawsuits

“We would never have imagined it was necessary in days past, but it’s clear now that the only thing standing between us and some of these lawsuits is y’all,” Kyle Henderson, pastor of First Baptist Church in Athens, told the Senate Committee on State Affairs. “We need you to stand up for us and put into place the protections every church and faith community ought to have.”

Gus Reyes, director of Texas Baptists’ Christian Life Commission, likewise voiced support  for the “pastor protection” legislation, emphasizing Baptists’ historic support for religious liberty for all people and belief in the soul competency of each individual.

“We function within the laws of our land, but we also hold certain beliefs that the majority may not like,” Reyes said. 

“True religious freedom is not needed much by those who hold views supported by the majority of people. Religious freedom is needed most by those who hold views that are in the minority.”

Possible problems for some church organizations

However, some religious leaders argued the legislation could create lawsuits for connectional and hierarchal religious denominations when their ministers—or other church employees—hold contrary beliefs.

“We don’t want ministers sued. We don’t want churches sued. But we also don’t want ministers to be able to sue their denominations when those sincerely held religious doctrines are in conflict,” said Joshua Houston, general counsel for Texas Impact.

Attorneys representing the bishops of several mainline Protestant denominations have drafted amendment language that would clarify the bill is not intended to provide a cause of action for lawsuits within denominations.

Others saw the legislation as unnecessary, citing religious liberty protection already in place.

Voiced concerns

Ryan Valentine, deputy director of the Texas Freedom Network, emphasized his organization believes no ministers should be compelled to solemnize a marriage that runs contrary to the tenets of their faith, but he voiced concerns about the “pastor protection bill.”

“We believe that is already well established and protected in the U.S. Constitution and doubly protected here in Texas with our state RFRA,” he said, referring to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

As long as the final bill is consistent with legislation that passed the Senate, “it basically reflects current law and practice allowing clergy and churches to decline to perform marriages inconsistent with their beliefs,” Valentine. “That is something most everyone supports.”

The Texas Freedom Network hopes to see one clarification in the bill—“making explicit that those protections extend to clergy when they are acting in an ecclesiastical capacity, not in a secular context,” he added. “But Sen. Estes stated clearly on the Senate floor that his intent was limited to ecclesiastical matters only, which is encouraging.”