AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
IF you're strictly mercenary about it, the recent California supreme court decision legalizing same-sex marriage has its upside. According to a recent study by the UCLA School of Law, the ensuing rash of weddings is expected to pump $683.6 million into the state economy over the next three years. With movement toward legalizing same-sex marriage and civil unions across the country, it would seem to be a great time to be a wedding photographer.
But same-sex marriage is a complex issue, and nothing better illustrates that than the plight of the humble wedding photographer. "On the surface, this sounds like a gold mine for wedding photographers. But it's actually more like a minefield," explained photographer Sean Cayton on the photography website Black Star Rising . "You see, wedding photographers get most of their business from word-of-mouth and referrals. Many have close relationships with specific churches, which may have very strong beliefs for or against gay marriage."
Of course, if you're a wedding photographer who would like to avoid the minefield that might ensue should you offend churches in your community, you could end up stepping into another minefield that might be even more problematic--you might find yourself on the wrong end of a lawsuit.
In 2006, Vanessa Willcock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission against a company called Elane Photography for refusing to photograph her gay commitment ceremony. The business is owned by a husband and wife--evangelical Christians who have made a decision not to photograph ceremonies related to gay unions. In April, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found against Elane Photography and ordered it to pay $6,637 for Willcock's legal fees in bringing the complaint. The decision has been appealed.
Of course, Elane Photography is hardly alone. There's been an effort in the courts not just to legalize gay marriage but to force acceptance of it as a matter of conscience and religious practice:
n In Ocean Grove, N.J., a lesbian couple brought a complaint to the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights against a Methodist church for not allowing them to use a pavilion on the church's beach-front property for their civil-union ceremony. The church had offered the couple use of its property and boardwalk for the ceremony, just not use of places the church considered "worship spaces." In January, an administrative judge with the Division of Civil Rights found against the church and stripped the pavilion area of its tax-exempt status for the church's refusal to comply with the state's sweeping anti-discrimination law. This will reportedly cost the church some $20,000 a year. Notably, the tax exemption was tied to the church's making its property publicly accessible, rather than to any religious criterion--but the Department of Environmental Protection managed to lift the Methodists' exemption within one week of the complaint's filing, even though it isn't the agency in charge of lifting tax exemptions. The church is appealing the decision.
n In California, the state supreme court is hearing a case against San Diego fertility doctors who are being sued because religious objections led them to refuse in vitro fertilization to a lesbian couple. Legal observers noted that the court--the same one that just legalized same-sex marriage--seemed hostile to the doctors' defense during oral arguments in May.