By Alan Caruba
Americans tend to take the liberties
spelled out in the Bill of Rights for granted. This is especially true of
freedom of religion in which the First Amendment protects “the free exercise
thereof” while at the same time prohibiting “an establishment of religion” to
ensure that neither a state nor the federal government can stipulate a specific
religion as the “official” one.
The earliest Americans came here to
avoid persecution for their beliefs and created a nation in which tolerance of
other faiths was an established virtue.
All of the major religions of the
world condemn homosexuality and prohibit same-sex marriage. While homosexuality
has gained a measure of tolerance in America many if not most Americans do not
accept same-sex marriage as a “right” that can be found in the U.S.
Constitution.
In the March 9 edition of the National
Review, one news item noted that “The sheer brazenness of President Obama’s
dissembling on gay marriage—confirmed by David Axelrod in a new book—might gall
even the most hard-bitten of cynics.”
“Obama, Axelrod writes, ‘was in favor
of same-sex marriages during the first presidential campaign, even as (he)
publicly said he only supported civil unions, not full marriages’, but he could
not admit as much for fear of losing black churchgoers. Thus it was confirmed
that the ‘change’ candidate had fallen back on a ‘sacred’ religious belief he
claimed to be representing, in furtherance of a policy that he now openly
describes as a ‘civil right.’ There is a word for this sort of conduct. But it
is not ‘hope’.”
The word is “liar”, but after six
years of Obama, anyone paying any attention knows that he lies routinely and
constantly no matter what the topic may be.
He lied repeatedly to secure support
for the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare. Passed into law by
Democratic Party votes—no Republicans voted for it—the so-called contraceptive
mandate has created many problems for Christians and others who are pro-life.
In a similar fashion,
many people of faith oppose same-sex marriage.
A new
book, “Religious Freedom in America: Constitutional Roots and Contemporary
Challenges”, edited by Allen D. Hertzke of the University of Oklahoma’s
Institute for the American Constitutional Heritage, calls religion “an
exceedingly messy area of constitutional law…because the boundaries of religion,
state, and society are complex and ever shifting.”
For most Americans there is no shift
in their view of marriage as a sacred rite exclusively between a man and woman.
One can read the Old and New Testaments from start to finish and find no
justification for same-sex marriage. From its earliest days civilization
throughout the world has never deemed same-sex marriage lawful, but Americans
are being told by its courts that the Constitution does.
The Founders who wrote the
Constitution would be astonished to learn this.
As Mary Nussbaum wrote in the Summer 2009 edition of Dissent, “Government plays a key role in all three aspects of marriage. It confers and administers benefits. It seems, at least, to operate as an agent of recognition or the granting of dignity. And it forms alliances with religious bodies.”
“Clergy are always among those entitled to perform legally binding marriages. Religions may refuse to marry people who are eligible for state marriage and they may also agree to marry people who are ineligible for state marriage. But much of the officially sanctioned marrying currently done in the United States is done on religious premises by religious personnel. What they are solemnizing (when there is a license granted by the state) is, however, not only a religious ritual, but also a public rite of passage, the entry into a privileged civic status.” (Emphasis added)
When the Defense of Marriage Act was being debated, Sen. Richard Byrd (D-WVA) said,
“throughout the annals of human
experience, in dozens of civilizations and cultures of varying value systems,
humanity has discovered that the permanent relationship between men and women is
a keystone to the stability, strength,
and health of human society—a relationship worthy of legal recognition and
judicial protection.” (Emphasis added)
That is what’s at stake. Homosexuals
have been offered “civil unions” granting them access to the government benefits
that “marriage” provides, but they have regarded this as stigmatizing and
degrading. They have insisted that society change and, for most who hold a
strong religious faith, that is impossible for the reasons stated by Sen.
Byrd.
Ms. Nussbaum concludes saying, “The future of marriage looks, in one way, a lot like its
past. People will continue to unite, form families, have children, and,
sometimes, split up. What the Constitution dictates, however, is that whatever
the state decides to do in this area will be done on a basis of equality.
Government cannot exclude any group of citizens from the civil benefits or the
expressive dignities of marriage without a compelling public
interest.”
So, the 14th Amendment that guarantees the “equal
protection of the law” will encompass the demand that citizens of the same sex
can marry even if religions and those who see this as a threat to a well-ordered
society disagree.
Religions in America,
many of whom administer charities, maintain colleges and universities, and serve
people of all faiths have encountered a world of problems following the passage
of ObamaCare. They are also being challenged in schools and academia, and being
told that any form of public prayer is unacceptable.
Here are just a few
examples:
In 2006, Boston’s
Catholic Charities shut down its historical adoption program after the State of
Massachusetts refused their “conscience accommodation” in its licensing
requirements. The same year, Morristown, New York began prosecuting Amish
home-builders for code violations.
In 2009, the U.S. Equal
Opportunity Employment Commission ruled that Belmont Abbey College in North
Carolina violated discrimination laws by not offering birth control in its
health plan coverage. A family court in Laconia, New Hampshire ordered a
Christian mother to stop home schooling her daughter because she “appeared to
reflect her mother’s rigidity on questions of
faith.”
In 2010, the Catholic
Charities of Washington, D.C., shut down its foster care program because of
mandates that violated church teaching. The following year three Illinois
diocese adoption and foster care programs were shut down.
In 2011 Alabama law made
it illegal for churches to serve undocumented immigrants, including baptisms,
hearing confessions, anointing the sick, giving marriage counseling and
providing Sunday school, Bible studies, or even providing Alcoholics Anonymous a
place to meet.
In 2012 through 2014,
facing huge fines for violating religious principles, more than 300 religious
institutions and businesses filed lawsuits against the Health and Human Services
contraceptive mandate.
As Hertzke noted, “A key
measure of a free society, in sum, is the extent to which people are not forced to choose between sacred
duties and citizenship privileges or obligations. This is what makes religious
freedom foundational to the American constitutional
order.”
In 1993 Congress seemed
to have agreed. It passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which
states that “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of
religion even if the burden results from a restrictive means of furthering” a
“compelling government interest.” It was signed into law by President Clinton.
Four years later, the Supreme Court struck down its core in Boerne v. Flores. It ruled that RFRA was
unconstitutional when applied to state and local governments, but upheld it when
applied to the federal government.
Issues such as
ObamaCare’s contraception mandate and same-sex marriage raise vital questions
about individual religious faith and the government’s right to determine
societal standards.
The question of whether
religion in America is losing the battle for historical and traditional moral
standards is one that affects people of faith and the society as a
whole.
© Alan Caruba,
2015
Editor's Note: "Religious Freedom in America" is published by the University of Oklahoma Press ($24.95, softcover).
Editor's Note: "Religious Freedom in America" is published by the University of Oklahoma Press ($24.95, softcover).
No comments:
Post a Comment