• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®

ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®

religious liberty and religious freedom news

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Articles
  • Podcast
Home » Free Exercise After Obergefell: Warnings from the Dissent

Free Exercise After Obergefell: Warnings from the Dissent

June 30, 2015 by ReligiousLiberty.TV

 

iStockPhoto - change ahead
iStockPhoto.com

 

 

Since the Supreme Court issued its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (decided June 26, 2015),  upholding the right of same-sex partners to marry throughout the United States, some have been concerned about what this means for the free exercise of religion.

Although Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion does not specifically reference any rights beyond the right of religious organizations to teach or speak against same-sex marriage, perhaps because the rights of religious institutions or individuals were not before the Court, the dissenting justices did raise the following concerns.

A law professor friend wrote me the following note following the decision.  “Are the people who are not worried more alert than Justices of the Supreme Court?”

“The failure of the majority to mention religious practice is significant – both in light of the dissents and the amici raising the issue.  Equally important is the recent decision in Abercrombie where the entire court agreed to reconfigure Title VII on this very point.  Previously, all of the circuits agreed that religious accommodation was an independent cause of action under Title VII.  The Supremes held that it was not, and all of them (the opinion of Alito is unclear) agreed that that the definition of religion included practice, and therefore a suspect class was an employee of faith who was required to practice religion in some specific way.  This, was different and more protective than First Amendment rights, according to the Court.  So, the Court has recently been focused on the difference between belief and practice.”

Here are the statements of the dissenting Justices regarding the impact of the decision on the free exercise of religion

Chief Justice Roberts:

Federal courts are blunt instruments when it comes to creating rights. They have constitutional power only to resolve concrete cases or controversies; they do not have the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties not before the court or to anticipate problems that may arise from the exercise of a new right. Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is–unlike the right imagined by the majority–actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1.

Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.

Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage–when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36-38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.

Perhaps the most discouraging aspect of today’s decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate. The majority offers a cursory assurance that it does not intend to disparage people who, as a matter of conscience, cannot accept same-sex marriage. Ante, at 19. That disclaimer is hard to square with the very next sentence, in which the majority explains that “the necessary consequence” of laws codifying the traditional definition of marriage is to “demea[n] or stigmatiz[e]” same-sex couples. Ante, at 19. The majority reiterates such characterizations over and over. By the majority’s account, Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire history–in particular, the tens of millions of people who voted to reaffirm their States’ enduring definition of marriage–have acted to “lock . . . out,” “disparage,” “disrespect and subordinate,” and inflict “[d]ignitary wounds” upon their gay and lesbian neighbors. Ante, at 17, 19, 22, 25. These apparent assaults on the character of fairminded people will have an effect, in society and in court. See post, at 6-7 (ALITO, J., dissenting). Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous. It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority’s “better informed understanding” as bigoted. Ante, at 19.

Justice Thomas:

Numerous amici–even some not supporting the States–have cautioned the Court that its decision here will “have unavoidable and wide-ranging implications for religious liberty.” Brief for General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists et al. as Amici Curiae 5. In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Id., at 7. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.

The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph, ante, at 27. And even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation’s tradition. Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for “religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Ibid. Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice.7

Although our Constitution provides some protection against such governmental restrictions on religious practices, the People have long elected to afford broader protections than this Court’s constitutional precedents mandate. Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process–as the Constitution requires–the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.

Justice Alito:

[This decision] will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. E.g., ante, at 11-13. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.

Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. Ante, at 26-27. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.

The system of federalism established by our Constitution provides a way for people with different beliefs to live together in a single nation. If the issue of same-sex marriage had been left to the people of the States, it is likely that some States would recognize same-sex marriage and others would not. It is also possible that some States would tie recognition to protection for conscience rights. The majority today makes that impossible. By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds.

 

Filed Under: Church and State, Civil Rights, Free Speech, Religious Institutions, Supreme Court, Tax Exemption Tagged With: Justice Alito, Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Obergefell, religious liberty

Primary Sidebar

Geneva, Switzerland - December 03, 2019: World Health Organization (WHO / OMS) Headquarters - DepositPhotos.com

Biden admin could hand over US control of health emergencies to WHO next week

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The ultimate control over America’s health care and its national sovereignty will be put up for a vote next week at a meeting of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) governing legislative body, the World Health Assembly (WHA).  On May 22-28, 2022, the 75th World Health Assembly will convene at the United Nations […]

Statement on the Leak in Dobbs

The leak was intended to disrupt the processing of the decision and we are not going to dignify the leak or the unidentified leaker by analyzing it prematurely. As a constitutional republic we cannot go down that road without doing severe damage to the institution of the Supreme Court where there must be professional courtesy between the justices and their staffs.

Boston City Hall - photo from Supreme Court Opinion

Supreme Court rules 9-0 that Boston violated 1st Amendment in refusing Christian flag at City Hall

This morning the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Shurtleff v. Boston (Dec’d 5/2/2022) that the city of Boston violated the free speech rights of a Christian group when it refused to allow them to participate in a city flag raising program.

Active Liberty - a survey of Justice Stephen Breyer's religion clause jurisprudence - Supreme Court

Active Liberty: A Survey of Justice Stephen Breyer’s Religion Clause Decisions

A comprehensive review of retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s decisions in Free Exercise and Establishment Clause cases.

Canadian gov’t calculates that expansion of assisted suicide will save taxpayers millions of dollars

In Canada, it is easier for the disabled who do not suffer terminal illness to get approval for assisted suicide than approval for affordable housing. The government has calculated the cost of providing healthcare versus providing assisted suicide.

Random Quote

Since the days of Thomas Jefferson, religious freedom has been at the absolute center of American values and an essential component of our foreign policy, and it is especially relevant right now for all of the obvious and tragic reasons.

— John Kerry

Get the ReligiousLiberty.TV Newsletter!

Comes out a couple of times a month. Unsubscribe anytime automatically, no questions asked.
* = required field
unsubscribe from list

powered by MailChimp!

Copyright © 2022 Founders' First Freedom is a registered trademark. All rights reserved.

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Articles
  • Podcast
0
0
0
0