By Jason Hines – Today was a landmark day for the Supreme Court, as it heard arguments on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. I have written about this case at every level (on the state level and at the 9th Cir.) so it only seems right that I talk about the arguments that took place earlier today. However, it doesn’t make sense to give a straight up and down summary or even a major analysis (there are plenty of people who did a good job of that, including this article by Adam Serwer), but there are some things that I want to highlight. Some will be important, some won’t, but these are the things that came to mind as I listened to the oral arguments –

Once again making the same tactical mistakes that were made in the lower courts, the Proposition 8 advocate failed to make an argument that would pass the muster of the “rational basis” test required before rights can be denied, and lost any ability to frame the debate.

On Friday, March 22, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear (D) vetoed a religious freedom Bill (HB 279) claiming that the bill would “cause serious unintentional consequences that could threaten public safety, health care, and individuals’ civil rights.” The legislature is expected to override the veto.

In response to a state Supreme Court decision upholding incarceration of an Amish group for refusing for religious reasons to install orange triangles on their buggies, the Kentucky Legislature has, by a veto proof margin, passed a measure (HB 279) which is designed to prevent the government from substantially burdening an individual’s freedom of religion.

New Hungarian legislation will limit religious freedom by giving parliament the sole right to decide which religious organizations are considered ‘churches’ for the purpose of domestic legislation. (Human Rights Watch)

It is not WASC’s role to dictate bylaw changes, determine who is on the board, or to dictate how personnel decisions will be made. Threats to remove accreditation should be taken very seriously and La Sierra University, and its parent organization, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, like other institutions, can and must challenge WASC when it exceeds its authority.