US Supreme Court Ruling - Gay Marriage, Part 2

Note...The first was part posted on July 14, 2015.


For various reasons church goers are rip victims for spreading rumors and false stories. One example is a recent thread that emerged immediately after the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriages. The stories revolve around clergy are being sued for refusing to perform gay marriages. Others suggest that hundreds or even thousands of such lawsuits will soon be forthcoming. The “gays” are out to destroy the church so some reactionaries have claimed.


Prior to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling granting gay marriage, any clergy acting as a religious official and place of worship could decline to marry anyone for whatever reason. Since the founding of the nation religious officials have had the right not to conduct a wedding of people who are not of that particular faith. Clergy still have that same right today. They could refuse to marry members who the minister feels one or both parties do not uphold a standard of faith that religious community and minister expect in the lives who that church marries. Clergy have that same right today.


A minister could and still can refuse to marry interfaith marriages. A minister could and still has the right to refuse to marry a couple who have not gone through premarital classes, or who as a result of those classes the minister feels are not compatible, or who in the mind of the minister are getting married for a wrong reason or that they are not “ready” to be married.


A Jewish rabbi has never been required to marry a Christian couple, and still can refuse doing so today. An Amish minister still has the right to refuse to marry the most godly young Methodist couple you know just because they are not Amish. The court ruling has not changed a thing, including a minister refusing to marry a gay couple. No church last year could be forced by law to allow its sanctuary and building a Buddhist wedding. The same holds true today. A church can still only permit weddings in its sanctuary that are conducted, assisted or sanctioned by its clergy conducts.


While rational calm religious leaders recognize the above, conservative political leaders (including church leadership who are highly politically engaged) have proposed “religious exemption” clauses to protect clergy, a protection that already exists. Stories of lawsuits are becoming rampant, and at times promoted by religious and political leaders, does not speak well for the state of the church.  


Some politicians and religious leaders are seeking to apply the argument of “religious liberty” and “freedom of conscience” to include people who are outside church related positions who may have a moral or religious objection to providing in some manner services to any person or couple who is living in a manner to which the service provider has an objection. The various legislations of objection are being drafted to encompass government officials, businesses and private individuals.


I find the “religious liberty” position most perplexing. It seems that these individuals are ultimately arguing against laws that serve to protect the faith community as a whole, including conservative Christians. They are seeking to dismantle safeguards that protect their freedom of worship and belief. The very laws that require a Christian who is to serve all citizens as a county clerk by issuing wedding licenses to all legally eligible applicants is the same law which protects that clerk’s spouse, son or daughter from being refused a position at a business based upon the clerk’s spouse’s or offspring’s religious beliefs.


If the clerk or a retail employee has the “religious right” to decline service to gay couple, or a Muslim, then it stands to reason that a private business owner then has the right to enquire into the religious beliefs of a potential employee during the hiring process (which is not currently permitted by federal and state laws). The employer would want to enquire into the belief system of all applicants so as to ensure that that those who are hired will not withhold services to particular clients.


If a business owner does not want to turn away business from people who are gay or Muslim or Buddhist or atheists will want to ensure that each employee’s views will help ensure that they will provide gracious service to such individuals. Hence, in the years to come a person may well feel uncomfortable in hiring conservative Christians who may well not feel comfortable serving such individuals the business serves.


Would the “religious exemption” create the ground for a school administrator to refuse to hire a Christian teacher whose church is against gay marriage because the teacher will have in the upcoming year a student or two who have two dads or two moms? Is it not possible that under “religious exemption” that the school’s administration could claim that the school could not risk the teacher’s beliefs and feelings about gay marriages and families (or other religions) being reflecting in the teacher’s dealings with the student and the student’s parents.  


The constitutional liberties which allow artists to create nude paintings or sculptures guarantee that Christians can stand on a street corner evangelizing. The same public accommodation laws that ensure service to all without discrimination ensures that I will not be turned away from a place of service because the proprietor’s beliefs conflict with mine.


Over the last three decades surveys continually indicate Christians as a whole, as well as practicing conservative Christians, are a diminishing segment in our society. The protections which that will safeguard a Christian minority from discrimination in public accommodation as well as their worship protects Jews, Muslims, atheists, gays and others who are minorities from undue discrimination. 


Christians need to give pause to making legislative changes which ultimately protects their freedoms.

US Supreme Court Ruling - Gay Marriage, Part 1

Since the United States Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage I’ve found the reactions within the Christian community, particularly within the more conservative wing, to be an expected reaction. Yet on another I’ve been perplexed and disappointed by various arguments, statements and suggested plans. I’ve been most troubled how quickly false and misleading “news stories” have popped up and quickly making the rounds within religious communities, being told and retold, posted and reposted as being true.

 

A prime example is a “hate literature” lawsuit against Zondervans being recast on the net and making its way around the churches. One version of the story casts faults the Obama administration for creating the grounds of the lawsuit. The story is false yet is flies around the church community as if it is fact. First, the lawsuit was filed during the Bush administration in 2007.  Second, anyone can file a lawsuit put forth any argument they wish, but that doesn’t mean the suit has any merit, which this one didn’t. Shortly after the suit was filed the court summarily dismissed it as frivolous and having no basis in law on five different counts.

 

Another is the reported occurrences of “clergy” being sued for not conducting gay marriages when approached. A version of this story is that there will soon be hundreds of such lawsuits being filed across the country. Like the Zondervan story, the reports are not only false but they are disturbing examples of reactionaries telling falsehoods in the name of Christ, pushing a political agenda, and demonstrating how many in the church are easily misled, and retell falsehoods and rumors. Such activity does not lift up the name of Christ and the credibility of the Church.          

 

It is understandable that conservative Christians are angry. They see the court widening the definition of marriage. They feel this widening is an attack on their beliefs, and the historic Christian understanding of marriage as being between one man and one woman. They greatly fear the gay marriage ruling by an “unelected activist court” will lead to their government forcing them to conduct gay marriages. It is unfortunate that this strong fear is creating talk about their churches not being involved in conducting any marriages. Suck folks need to take several deep breaths, engage their heads, and not allow their emotions to carry them away…in other words, practice the same principles that they encourage those visiting them in the pastoral counseling office.

 

Let’s not forget that marriage is a civil contract, one that is taken so seriously and is viewed above other types of contract that the dissolving of the contract cannot take place outside a court setting and judicial oversight. The same is said applies to each nation across the globe, with each nation determining the conditions and qualifications for marriage. No church or religious official can issue a license to marry. The license is the state’s permission to enter into a marriage contract and entering into the contract can only be done by licensed officials.  Clergy who have been duly authorized by their religious body and the state, may officiate at these ceremonies. The marriage contract is to be assented to verbally (exceptions granted for those who are mute) before witnesses. While marriage contracts can be entered into before an official and two or three others, most marriage contracts are encompassed around specially designed and elaborate ceremonies before a large gathering of family and friends.

 

For various reasons the majority of marriage ceremonies are done in a religious context. No doubt some have a religious service out of some type of family obligation. Others do so for deeply held spiritual reasons as a means to incorporate their beliefs in their marital vows. Some couples accept their church’s standard religious vows with little or no modification. For others, like Evie and I, they pour through various vows as part of a process of drafting their own vows that reflect their passion, spirituality and convictions. While the vows may differ greatly from couple to couple, at the end of day they all have one thing in common as required by law…that each party freely responds affirmatively to the “do you take” question. If one of the parties does not affirm their willingness, the marriage contract is nullified.

 

For Evie and I, no matter how elaborate or brief, no matter the context or setting in which the vows are uttered, one couple’s marital vows, neither adds to nor diminishes our marital relationship. While our 1979 marriage contract is based upon civil law, it was also for us a deeply spiritual moment of committing each to the other for our lifetime. Another person being married that day in a 5 minute ceremony before the justice of the peace with no religious statements had then, nor now,  no affect upon our marital vows or relationship.

 

Too often the church spends an inordinate amount of its energy fighting battles outside its walls, in the community and in other churches. Each individual church needs to give as much focused attention as possible to the lives and well-being of its congregates, including its marital relationships. We need churches who are preparing people for marriage, helping newly married couples to strengthen their relationships and move positively from the honeymoon stage to the settling down stage, helping the mid-life marriages remain dynamic and vibrant and helping the more senior marriages to weather the storms they encounter that if not successfully navigated leads to two people instead of growing in love and old together, just grow old in the presence of each other.

Part 2 to follow...cleric protections already exist

He Who Controls the Megaphone

Two weeks ago the US Supreme Court tossed out the limits on what can be contributed by individuals or companies to politicians and political action committees. The court also tossed out what individuals or political action committees are able to spend on political advocacy advertisements in the weeks before an election.

The Court’s 5-4 majority position is that contribution limits hinder free speech, stifle dialogue and hinder the election process. These wise judges on the Court dismiss the idea that money can influence elections. They do agree that a small group who can control the megaphone, outshout their opponents and can pour money into slick messaging will overpower the message and arguments of their opponents and in the process determine who will be in power.

Essentially their position is that minor parties who have tried to get candidates elected have not been successful because the messages of these candidates have not had any traction. Lack of access to the public forum has little to do with their lack of success.

American and world history is replete with examples of the powerful installing elected officials into office and having them function more or less as their puppets. Over the centuries various despots have learned that he who is able to control the mass communication process will control the masses. The Iranian government fully understands this principle as it used the mass communication system over and over again to limit the extent and then to quell the protests over the election process.

Over the last 13 Presidential elections since 1960 the Republicans have won seven times. Over the last 9 Presidential elections the Republicans have won five times. Rarely has 58% or more of the House or Senate been in the hands of one party. If the Court is correct there will not be a significant shift in this pattern over the next ten to fifteen years. On the other hand if critics of the Court's ruling are correct, out ten years there will be fewer Democratic victories in races for the House, Senate and White House with well healed corporations and the wealthy pouring money into candidates of their choice, most likely Republican races. Increasingly Democrats will sound like current Republicans and more Republicans will start to sound like Forbs 500 executives. The end result is that America could move towards having the trapings of a democracy with elected officials functioning as an extension of an oligarchy.

The theory that he who controls the megaphone controls the election results is about to be tested.

Supreme Court and Sonia Sotomayor

Since the 1980s a growing number of conservatives have talked about the importance of fighting to have confirmed conservatives appointed to the Supreme Court in order to secure their agenda regarding abortion, gay rights, affirmative action and devolving the public education system.

In the coming days conservatives who oppose Sotmayor’s nomination will focus their attack in one of two directions. The first attack is rooted in her 2001 “wise Latina” comment that she was better qualified to understanding various dynamics of some gender and ethic cases because of her gender and ethnicity. Her critics argue that this shows a bias that is in appropriate. Such an attack is rooted in the impossible…approaching a case with a blank slate. It is impossible for a person not to have their probative questions, reasoning and the judicious weighing out of various factors influenced by their religious belief system, education and life experiences.

We need justices who are in touch with their roots, understand how they impact their thought process and attempt to keep them from having undue sway as they come to a decision on a particular case. I find such an attack to be disingenuous as they are made by the same individuals who are upset by past appointees to have not made decisions that were fully in keeping with their religious and education beliefs by making rulings that were not conservative enough.

The second set attacks are rooted in a recent Supreme Court reversal of her appeals court ruling regarding a discrimination case filed by white firefighters in New Haven Connecticut. The reasoning goes that how can she be fit for the court given that she has had a case reversed by the same court to which she is nominated. At first this sounds logical but it is a fallacious argument. Any Supreme Court justice is only one of nine voices and votes on the court. Rarely do any rulings carry the judgment of all nine justices. Recently one case had eight in the majority and one in the minority.

One way to look at those in the minority, particularly cases that go 6-3, 7-2, and 8-1, is that the majority is overturning the ruling and opinion of the minority. If Sotomayor is unfit due to this one issue being overturned by her future peers, then is not Clarence Thomas equally unfit as he has been in the minority more often than not than any justice each year since he was appointed to the bench, including the recent 8-1 case. Oh, I forgot, Thomas is the darling of the ultra conservatives and hence the argument that they use against Sotomayor cannot apply to Thomas.

Hence, as with the “wise Latina” comment, the reversal arguments too are shallow and disingenuous. They are a smoke screen for her nomination being opposed because they do not view her as a conservative. The American Bar Association has rated Sotomayor as eminently qualified, and unless there are solid arguments to the contrary, I will go with their judgment rather than those of political hacks who are trying to obfuscate the high quality of the nominee with their political smoke.

The Nine

The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court by Jeffrey Toobin provides wonderful insights into the Court over which Chief Justice William Rehnquist presided from September 1986 to September 2003.


Toobin, a lawyer and CNN commentator on the Court, provides wonderful insights into the personalities of the Associate Justices, their passions and biases. A plethora of key cases from those years are outlined, including issues related to abortion, equality, gay rights, federalism, and religious expression in the public square. One of the more fascinating sections was Toobin’s examination of Bush v. Gore which the author notes brought forth from the Rehnquist Court all its primary shortcomings and in the end damaged public respect for the Court. The section dealing with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the detaining and treatment of prisoners provided for me fresh insights into the Bush Administration’s imperialistic attitude and desire to increase the power of the Presidency, for which the Bush administration was judged harshly by the Court.

The book provides significant extracts from both majority and dissenting rulings. Though numerous, the extracts are judicious and paired with commentary that allows the average reader to understand the essence of what is being said in the statements.

The book also reveals the political and religious right’s efforts to gain control of the Court. Harriet Miers, though a strong conservative and a very loyal Bush advisor withdrew her nomination because the religious right did not think she was conservative enough. Toobin notes that ultimately Bush’s selections of John Roberts and Samuel Alito have moved the Court strongly to the right after being a centrist court for decades. Toobin outlines that his selections were made to satisfy and sooth the concerns of four men, Jay Sekulow the primary lawyer pushing for prayer at public events and in schools, Ed Meese who was in the Regan administration and an advocate of increasing the power of the President, Manny Miranda and James Dobson the dominant voice of religious right, and all strong critics of an independent and strong judiciary. The book concludes with a handful of rulings from the Roberts Court and how the Court under Roberts has a conservative agenda.

This book is well worth reading.