How Will the Supreme Court Gay Marriage Decision Affect Religious Freedom?

Christian Post ^ | 06/22/2015 | Napp Nazworth

[SeekAndFind]

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage, its affect on religious freedom will depend upon how the opinion is written, according to experts.

The best possible outcome for religious freedom would be for the court to rule that the U.S. Constitution does not require all states to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. If the court does require all states to redefine marriage, however, there are a range of options that could affect religious freedom differently.

If the court were to "elevate sexual orientation to a protected category similar to race," Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Christian Post that could have a detrimental impact on the religious freedom of groups and people who do not believe that same-sex marriage is actually marriage.

Equally troubling for religious freedom, he added, would be for the court to say that opposition to same-sex marriage is motivated by animus, as Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested in two prior decisions. Kennedy is expected to write the opinion in this month's gay marriage case.

In Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado amendment prohibiting special legal status based upon sexual orientation, Kennedy wrote that the amendment was "inexplicable by anything except animus."

And in one of last year's gay marriage decisions, United States v. Windsor, Kennedy wrote that a law prohibiting federal recognition of gay marriage, the Defense of Marriage Act, placed a "stigma" upon same-sex couples and was motivated by "improper animus" and a "desire to harm a politically unpopular group."

In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia criticized Kennedy for not providing evidence that the bipartisan Congress and President Bill Clinton were driven by hatred of gays when they passed the law.

"Laying such a charge against them should require the most extraordinary­ evidence, and I would have thought that every attempt would be made to indulge a more anodyne explanation for the statute," Scalia wrote.

John Inazu, associate professor of law and political science at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, argued, at a recent Faith Angle Forum, that the decision's affect on religious freedom is more related to the language used in the opinion than the actual legal reasoning. He offered Kennedy's use of the word "animus" as an example.

"My sense is, more than the precise legal grounds it's going to be words like 'animus' and 'bigotry.' Whether those words are included or not in the opinion is going to drive the downstream religious liberty challenges," he said during a Q&A.

When asked for clarification, Inazu acknowledged that the court's legal reasoning should be more important than the emotional weight of the language it uses, but argued that the reality is quite different.

When the Supreme Court issues an opinion, he explained, "there are legal consequences and there are cultural signals that follow," and, "the rhetorical framing of the analysis will make a big difference [for religious freedom], I think, downstream."

"The Supreme Court has a lot of moral authority, and moral authority that plays out in the words [it uses] as well as [its] doctrinal arguments," Inazu said.

If the court does redefine marriage for the whole country, Stanley added, the best possible outcome for religious freedom would be if the decision is written in a way that acknowledges there are different principled viewpoints to marriage. He used Planned Parenthood v. Casey as an example. In that opinion, which was co-written by Kennedy, the court acknowledged there are deeply held views on both sides of the abortion debate.

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life," the opinion read.

Stanley Carlson-Thies, founder and senior director of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, also encouraged the court, if it does choose to redefine marriage, to write the opinion in a manner that maximizes religious freedom.

The court should "specifically remind legislators and government officials that they are duty bound to protect the free exercise of religion, including when religion shapes the operations and services of faith-based organizations like schools, adoption agencies, religious counseling programs, and residential facilities," he wrote Thursday. "And then federal, state, and local officials can set about the challenging, but essential, task of protecting institutional religious freedom in light of same-sex marriage."

While some pastors and religious leaders have recently promised civil disobedience if the court redefines marriage, Stanley does not believe that would be necessary in the foreseeable future. Pastors, for instance, will not be required to perform same-sex weddings, and churches will not be required to allow same-sex ceremonies on their property.

Churches and para-church groups "still have great constitutional protections," he reminded.

Stanley does, however, encourage churches and other Christian groups to better protect themselves from potential lawsuits by making sure they have formal statements regarding their beliefs about marriage, and those statements are included, for instance, in employment criteria, facility use policies, and mission statements.

ADF and the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission created a guidebook to help churches, Christian schools and Christian ministries fashion such statements. You can download a free copy here.

Carlson-Thies has similar advice for faith-based groups.

"Whatever the Supreme Court rules, the most important action that faith-based organizations must take is to examine their stated and unstated policies and practices and make sure that these are aligned with and rooted in the religious convictions they claim to be guided by. This is important legally: a religious organization cannot easily claim religious freedom protections for its countercultural ways if it is not evident to judges and other observers that those countercultural ways are due to its religious convictions," he wrote.

[miss marmelstein]

It will be an unmitigated nightmare to the religious communities of America.

[Vaduz]

And to the normal way of life.

[HLPhat]

I’m guessing several billions years of natural selection won’t be particularly impressed; and the Due Penalties rendered by nature for the reprobate minded will remain in effect.

[Ransomed]

“The best possible outcome for religious freedom would be for the court to rule that the U.S. Constitution does not require all states to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.”

If that is the best case, it’s still pretty grim, in my opinion. Even the states that passed their amendments in the 70-80% ranges would accept ‘gay marriage’ by repealing any marriage amendment left standing within 20 years, if the trend of the popular voting on the issue continues. The ones that only passed their amendments in the 60-70% ranges in the middle of the last decade would be vulnerable to another popular vote before that. The ones that only passed them in 50-60% ranges probably couldn’t pass them again now.

Freegards

[Jacquerie]

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life," the opinion (from Justice Kennedy) read.

Kennedy is proof that one can actually blow too much dope in college.

Kennedy deserves the derision of history and will eventually join the ranks of judicial notables like Taney.

[MrB]

For Muslims, not at all, because they’re not the target.

The whole point of government sanction of gay “marriage” is to use it as a weapon to criminalize Christianity.

So, this use of the world “religious” in this argument is specious, inaccurate, and plays into the left’s hands.

Call them out specifically as anti-Christian.

[Jacquerie]

I think it was Mark Levin who wrote that at least in theocratic hellholes like Iran, religious leaders make religious decisions.

OTOH in our once free republic, nine lawyers in secular black vestments make religious decisions.

Article V before we can't.

[Yosemitest]

If we OBEY GOD, how many Supreme Court Justices will we have to replace ?



TO TOLERATE HOMOSEXUALS IS EVIL.
This is what we get when we FAIL to OBEY God.
For it is written:

“ For whosoever shall commit ANY of these abominations,
even the SOULS that commit them
SHALL BE CUT OFF from among their people. ”

Those who support homosexuals are against our Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ.
These anti Christ people only bring destruction on us ALL.
I have NO sympathy for homosexuals!

Homosexuality is a "Mark" of disobedience.

It was given by our Heavenly Father to test us
to see ... if we will OBEY our Heavenly Father,
and abide by His commandments, statues, and ordinances.

Someone once asked

"Why are they [homosexuals] all so angry?"

The answer is in the definition of "REPROBATE".

rep·ro·bate \ˈre-prə-ˌbāt\ a. [L. reprobatus, reprobo, to disallow; re and probo, to prove.]

1. Not enduring proof or trial; not of standard purity or fineness; disallowed; rejected.


Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them. Jer. 6.




2. Abandoned in sin; lost to virtue or grace.

They profess that they know God, but in works deny him, being abominable and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate. Titus 1.

3. Abandoned to error, or in apostasy. 2Tim. 3.

And the reason"why" is given in the Bible.

God has a cure for homosexuals.

But will we OBEY our Heavenly Father?

"Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect
that God is just,
that his justice cannot sleep forever."

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

I think it was Mark Levin who wrote that at least in theocratic hellholes like Iran, religious leaders make religious decisions. OTOH in our once free republic, nine lawyers in secular black vestments make religious decisions.

That is a very good point.

[Salvation]

40 Days of Prayer for Marriage: May 22 - June 30
Please Pray This Week for Traditional Marriage – The Supreme Court Is in Session

[savagesusie]

Of course it is an unmitigated nightmare! It requires ALL people to sexualize their children-—to “teach” them perversions as “natural”-—to destroy Reason and Common Sense (Natural Law-basis of understanding that created Modern Science and the US Constitution).

Children embed ideas-—like Slavery is Good-—by the culture. It took thousands of years to flip Good and Evil——it will only take ONE generation of “homosexual” marriage to normalize sodomizing others is “Good”. It makes selling babies “good”-—using women’s bodies for breeding machines “good”—using others as a MEANS to an End-—in purposeless, sterile ways “Good”.

You CAN’T normalize muslim behaviors without FLIPPING the Worldview of children. OUR Constitution is based on Natural Rights from God-—not made-up evil desires which use humans in irrational, sterile ways.

This will DESTROY the basic principles of the US Constitution and make it into a muslim, Stalin or Satanist document...where “rights” come from Satan—or evil man.

Why the Leftists (utopians) want to “pass” this is to destroy the Christian Worldview in any children-—to recreate paganism and atheism for the “happy slavery” mindset which will result with the idea that sodomizing others is a “Natural Right”-—(from God even)——which is what this elevation of a unnatural, dehumanizing vice does.

[Dilbert San Diego]

Agreed.

At one time, there was an overwhelming consensus that marriage should be a man and a woman. Even many liberals voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

Today, even many younger conservatives, while conservative on other issues, are in favor of homosexual marriage.

Agreed that if states were to vote again on marriage today, the results would be different in a number of states.

We saw a preview of this in 2012, when voters in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington state approved homosexual marriage at the ballot box.

[atc23]

"The Supreme Court has a lot of moral authority, and moral authority that plays out in the words [it uses] as well as [its] doctrinal arguments," Inazu said.

Really? When was this so? in the 1950's? LOLZ

[tbw2]

A religious school (conservative Episcopalian) in my area rewrote the admission criteria of children to protect their right to teach traditional family values.
It was deemed better to reject children whose families came from non-traditional settings than get sued for teaching what liberals call hate, or simply having a child come home crying that the priest had said what Mommy and Mommy were doing was a sin.
In order to legally protect their right to decline admission by children of lesbians and gays, they wrote a policy that declined admission of children by unmarried parents, gay or straight. Single moms by choice were also excluded.
And if the child was to attend, both parents had to sign off on the religious education (unless other parent was dead). Divorced parents, OK, widowed parents, OK, married parents as step parents, OK. Single mothers by choice and gay families, no.

They had a shift in enrollment, some leaving, some joining.

Then a county level Democrat party official tries to enroll her daughter. The school takes the deposit and says we need the other parent’s signature on the paperwork, we don’t want a family conflicted over our teachings. Only a few days before the start of school, she comes out an announces the other parent is a woman, you have to let us enroll.
The school returns her money, says you don’t meet the criteria, here’s a list of public schools and private schools that will take you.

Media firestorm on refusing a kindergartener with two moms, the hateful, bigoted school.
Death threats to the principal, teachers, administrator. Letters, suspicious packages, biased news stories in the media.
Furor died down, though they had to up security. A separate incident led to other changes in security, administrators leaving the school.
But their admission criteria stood, because homosexual marriage isn’t recognized by the state, applying equally whether Mom lived with a woman or a guy.

This ruling that makes “gay marriage” equivalent to heterosexual marriage means that the legal divide they put in place is lost.
Now they would have to take the children of legally sanctioned same sex partners.
And then risk lawsuits because teaching the ideal family is a married mother and father is somehow “hate”.

[Ransomed]

If popular votes were held again on the issue, I don’t think there is one state that would pass their amendment by more than they did originally. In some cases I think it would pass by much less or fail outright.

When most of those amendments passed 10 years or so ago by such wide margins, I think a lot of conservatives thought that those votes would be remaining static.

Freegards

[savagesusie]

What bugs me about Mark Levine-—like Scalia-—he always “thinks” that we are a Democracy, where States can vote away our Natural Rights (which are UNALIENABLE) which ONLY come from God and predate our government.

Our Natural Rights are VERY LIMITED and based on Natural Law Theory (Lockean Philosophy/Montesquieu)-—like true marriage (Natural Duty to raise ALL biological offspring—not to sell them and deny them their biological parent like in Marxist utopianism-— or use women as breeding machines like in Marxist utopianism)——Our Natural Rights are unalienable and can NOT be taken away or CHANGED——they come directly from the Creator (Christian God only).

It is the basic MEANING of “....Laws of Nature and nature’s God” stated in the Founding Documents. ALL our “civil rights” etc. comes from Natural Law Theory——which is based on God-Given NATURAL Rights and Justice is based on Christian Ethics which are the ONLY rational ethic system-—based on Natural Law Theory because of St. Thomas A. in the 13th Century and Common Law before that.

Justice is the Queen of Virtue and ALL Just Law has to promote “public virtue” (Montesquieu) and to promote vice makes the “Just” Law, Null and Void-—as Justice John Marshall stated all unjust law is “null and void”. they repeated that at Nuremberg Trials. Welfare “laws” should be “null and void” and “homosexual marriage” destroys Right Reason-—actually REMOVES Reason from “Just Law” for an irrational, vile, purposeless act. It is a Right to make sodomy into a felony since it is such a degrading, dehumanizing use of the human body. No vice can be made into a “Just Law”.

[dps.inspect]

So we actually do live in a theocratic society, where modern culture has become the religion of the day. Its religious tenets are: 1) Tolarance toward all but for those who's views varry from accepted societal norms. 2) Any mention of God, Jesus, heaven or hell must be couched in leftist terms, such as liberation theology or social justace, and the conept of a supreme God is de-elevated to be on the same level as, if not lower than, all other belief systems. 3) The Supreme cort decides on what is socially acceptable.

This is how I know God is real and is the Creator of uas all...

Psalms 2: Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,
3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11 Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Verse three cannot have been written by the mind of man but of God only, as this statement has been true of all of human history. One of the miricals of the word of God is, after conversion, you read it and say yes and amen in your heart, and the truth of it lifts your soul!

[lastchance]

It will kill it except maybe for the hiring of clergy.