NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Religious Liberty

Maggie Gallagher: Court Unanimously Slaps Down Obama's Anti-Religion Doctrine

NOM co-founder Maggie Gallagher's syndicated column in Human Events on this week's Supreme Court decision:

Lost in the political shuffle in New Hampshire was an epic U.S. Supreme Court decision this week in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

By an astounding, unanimous 9-0 margin, the usually ideologically divided Supreme Court slapped down President Obama's radical doctrine that the federal government can tell a church who it must employ as a minister if the church violates anti-discrimination employment provisions.

The Obama administration's claim that there is no special protection for clergy in our Constitution, the majority ruled, "is hard to square with the text of the First Amendment itself, which gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations. We cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization's freedom to select its own ministers."

Professor Douglas Laycock argued the case for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which defended the little Michigan church in court. Laycock is a longtime advisory board member of the organization (becketfund.org), which defends the religious liberty of all religions.

"This is a huge win for religious liberty," he said via a press release. "The Court has unanimously confirmed the right of churches to select their own ministers and religious leaders."

Michael Stokes Paulsen Praises Supreme Court Decision on Religious Liberty

In Public Discourse:

Every now and then, the Supreme Court surprises its critics by getting something absolutely, completely right: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, decided on Wednesday, is just such a case. The Court held that the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment—both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause—prohibit any government interference with the employment relationship between a religious body and those it in good faith (so to speak) considers its “ministers”: those leaders, teachers, and others who, in the words of the Court, “personify” the beliefs of the religious community.

The decision embraced, in broad language, the constitutional right of religious groups to autonomy in matters of their own “internal governance” and to the freedom to exercise “control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs.” It specifically affirmed “a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments.” And it grounded its holding in the proposition that “the text of the First Amendment itself . . . gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations.”

The decision was, strikingly, unanimous: no one disagreed with Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion for the Court. The only separate opinions were concurring ones, suggesting further extensions or specific applications of the Court’s reasoning. On a Court that has often been bitterly divided, this expression of unanimity is truly remarkable.

WaTimes: Religious Leaders: Gay Marriage a "Peril" to Liberty

The Washington Times:

Nearly 40 religious leaders, including Catholic, evangelical, Jewish and Mormon figures, issued an open letter Thursday that argues that the battle against same-sex marriage is a fight on behalf of religious freedom.

“Marriage and religious freedom are both deeply woven into the fabric of this nation,” clergy members wrote in their letter, “Marriage and Religious Freedom: Fundamental Goods That Stand or Fall Together.” It calls on all Americans to promote and protect marriage “in its true definition.”

The “most urgent peril” associated with legalizing same-sex unions is that religious individuals and organizations would be forced or pressured to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct, they explained.

... “It is sad to admit that our culture has reached a point where such a statement is necessary, and yet it is for just such a time as this that the Lord has called the North American Lutheran Church into being, to be able to make such a stand and offer our support to this important cause,” said the Rev. John F. Bradosky, bishop of the NALC, which was created in 2010 as a church body for “traditionally grounded” Lutherans.

“Marriage and religious liberty are at a crisis point in the United States. This letter is a sign of hope,” said Cardinal-designate and New York Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan.

Breaking News: New Jersey School Board Moves to Fire Viki Knox!

The Star-Ledger:

The Union Township school board has filed tenure charges against Viki Knox, the high school English teacher whose anti-gay remarks on Facebook raised a firestorm over her free speech rights and her role as a public school teacher.

The board formally filed the charges against Knox in late December, a step that begins the lengthy and costly process to fire Knox, school board president Ray Perkins said. He could not comment on the findings of the district's three-month investigation of Knox's conduct.

... Knox could not immediately be reached for comment about the board's action. In September, Knox's husband spoke publicly defending her comments as expression of her religion.

Religous Leaders Express Concern: After SSM, Will Government Treat Us Like Racists?

This morning an interfaith group of religious leaders, including “Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Evangelical, Jewish, Lutheran, Mormon, and Pentecostal communities”, released an interfaith statement [PDF here] validating the growing concerns over religious liberty and marriage:

"...we believe the most urgent peril [of redefining marriage] is this: forcing or pressuring both individuals and religious organizations—throughout their operations, well beyond religious ceremonies—to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct.

...In short, the refusal of these religious organizations to treat a same-sex sexual relationship as if it were a marriage marked them and their members as bigots, subjecting them to the full arsenal of government punishments and pressures reserved for racists. These punishments will only grow more frequent and more severe if civil "marriage" is redefined in additional jurisdictions. For then, government will compel special recognition of relationships that we the undersigned religious leaders and the communities of faith that we represent cannot, in conscience, affirm. Because law and government not only coerce and incentivize but also teach, these sanctions would lend greater moral legitimacy to private efforts to punish those who defend marriage.

Therefore, we encourage all people of good will to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman, and to consider carefully the far-reaching consequences for the religious freedom of all Americans if marriage is redefined."

Australia's Greatest Women's Tennis Player Stands for Marriage Despite Gay Campaign

The Australian News:

Margaret Court has vowed to maintain her opposition to homosexuality and same-sex marriage, undeterred by gay activists planning to use next week's Australian Open tennis championships to protest against her views.

Court, Australia's greatest women's tennis player and a senior pastor at Perth's Victory Life Centre church, said she had never "run from anything" and expected Australian Open organisers to prevent next week's tournament from being hijacked by the gay rights agenda.

"Are they not wanting me to come to the Australian Open? Is that what they are trying to do? I don't run from anything," Court told The Australian yesterday.

"I have always been a champion and always loved what I do and love tennis. I think it is very sad they can bring it into that. It is hard that they can voice their opinions but I am not allowed to voice my opinion. There is something wrong somewhere.

"We live in a free society and I stand up for families between a husband and a wife. I won't ever back down on that."

Court's views on homosexuality, which she has publicly held for more than 20 years, have prompted gay activists to launch a "Rainbow Flags Over Margaret Court Arena" Facebook site urging people to display gay pride colours at the stadium court named after her.

Supreme Court Slaps Down Obama's Anti-Religion Attack!

It was unanimous, as legal Scholar Ed Whelan points out on NRO's Bench Memos blog:

In its unanimous ruling today in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC, the Supreme Court held that the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause bar ministers from invoking the employment-discrimination laws against the religious organizations that employ them.

Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion on behalf of the entire Court affirms that the so-called “ministerial exception” to employment-discrimination laws is firmly rooted in the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses, including the Court’s decisions establishing that “it is impermissible for the government to contradict a church’s determination of who can act as its ministers.” The opinion thus rejects the remarkably hostile contentions of the Obama administration that there is no general ministerial exception and that religious organizations are limited to the right to freedom of association that labor unions and social clubs enjoy.

Video: Newt Gingrich Responds to CNN Bias Against Religious Liberty

Newt Gingrich called out the mainstream media for bias when covering religious liberty issues at a GOP debate this weekend and defended that critique when a CNN host tried to counter his claims in an interview:

Colorado Churches Could be Forced to Host Same-Sex Civil Unions in Legal Loophole

The Greeley Gazette:

A recent decision by a judge in Hawaii could open the door for churches in Colorado to be forced to allow same-sex couples to use their facilities for civil unions.

In February, Hawaii passed a law permitting civil unions. The law is similar to Colorado’s domestic partner bill. It contains a religious exemption saying, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any person authorized to perform solemnizations of marriages or civil unions to perform a solemnization of a civil union, and no such authorized person who fails or refuses for any reason to join persons in a civil union shall be subject to any fine or other penalty for the failure or refusal.”

Colorado’s Domestic Partnership law has a similar provision saying, “No priest, minister, rabbi, or other official of any religious institution or denomination shall be required to certify any domestic partnership in violation of his or her right to the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Section 4 of Article II of the Colorado Constitution.”

While the exemptions state that no one is required to certify the partnership, the question is; does that apply to an equal access use of the church, synagogue or mosque’s facilities? Some homosexual activist groups are saying that when the church opens up its facilities it is engaging in commerce and becomes subject to anti-discrimination laws.

Churches have a right to be concerned. In 2007, a lesbian couple in New Jersey sued a Methodist church association after the church refused to rent the couple a private campground for their civil union ceremony. The ministry lost its tax-exempt status over the issue.

ADF Video: Same-Sex Couple Challenge Religious Freedom of Hawaiian B&B Owners

Alliance Defense Fund Attorney Dale Schowengerdt discusses a case we've been watching in Hawaii:

Federal District Judge Forces Hawaii Churches to Accommodate Same-Sex Civil Unions

OneNewsNow:

A court in Hawaii has refused to exempt churches from being forced to allow their property to be used for civil union ceremonies.

The Emmanuel Temple and the Lighthouse Outreach Center Assembly of God requested a restraining order to block a law that permits same-sex couples to enter civil unions. It exempts clergy from performing the ceremonies, which are the equivalent of marriage, but there is no provision to protect church property. They argued that they would face civil penalties and fines if they refused to rent their property for same-sex civil unions, but U.S. District Judge Michael Seabright denied the request.

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel Action tells OneNewsNow that creates a clear conflict between government and the free exercise of religion.

Matt Barber"There is no exemption for religious institutions, for churches, houses of worship from being subject to fines and to sanctions as provided in the legislation for refusing to allow their houses of worship to be desecrated through the use of a so-called 'civil union' ceremony," he explains.

Only 12 Hours Left — This Is It... Your Last Chance!

Email Header Image
Money Raised So Far

This is the last email I'm able to send you before tonight's midnight deadline and the conclusion of our tremendous million dollar matching campaign.

As you know, one of our most generous donors has offered to MATCH—dollar for dollar—every donation we receive, all the way up to one million dollars!

As of this morning, we have raised $894,915.06 toward our goal. We have only until midnight tonight to raise another $894,915.06 to take full advantage of this incredible opportunity!

Today is the last day for the match and we are so close!

Will you be the one to help put us over the top?

Donate Now

As you know, our opponents get huge checks from Hollywood celebrities or well-funded left-wing foundations. NOM counters with tens of thousands of small donations from supporters just like you, who sacrifice your time and money to defend marriage.

If we are able to take full advantage of the Year-End Million Dollar Match, we will have the sort of financial security and proof of grassroots support that will show the anti-marriage crowd that we are not going to roll over and allow marriage to be destroyed. It will send a strong message that we are ready to go toe-to-toe with the anti-marriage bullies all over America.

Will you do your part to help?

We are counting on you—one of our most loyal supporters—to make sure we receive every penny of this $1 million matching gift offer.

So please make one urgent year-end gift to the National Organization for Marriage before midnight tonight to put us over the top and send a message to those who would see marriage in America destroyed.

As I said, today is the last day before this offer expires–you must act now!

With so much at stake in 2012 (marriage under fire in dozens of states, the legal case to uphold Prop 8 in California, a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act moving through the Senate, and the most important presidential election for marriage ever), we MUST close out 2011 on strong financial ground.

That's exactly what we'll do with this Million Dollar Matching Gift offer, but only if you make your own urgent, generous gift right away.

Thank you for all you have done and all that we will do together in 2012. Happy New Year!

Sincerely,

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

P.S. Please do not delay. When thinking about how much you can afford to stop same-sex marriage from being imposed on your state in 2012, consider that your gift will be immediately matched for maximum effectiveness.

So please be as generous as you possibly can right now. The offer expires tonight at midnight, so I must hear from you as soon as possible. Thank you so much, and God bless you!

Donate Now

NRO's Rich Lowry on the Santorum Surge

Rich Lowry of National Review Online on a new poll finding Santorum in 3rd place:

This could be huge for Santorum. I’m guessing people in Iowa like what he says, but needed permission to support him in the form of some assurance that their votes wouldn’t be wasted. If he’s trending upwards in the polls, they get that permission. As John McCormack pointed out in his nice piece on Santorum in The Weekly Standard, he’s not perfect; he has the liabilities of a Bush-era member of the Senate Republican leadership. But our friend Quin Hillyer, who’s been banging the drums for Santorum for about a year, had this post in the Corner a few weeks ago that makes the case for his record.
Also, see Lowry's latest column: "Santorum's First Look"

Tom Farr On Prop 8 and the "Effort to Expel Religious Arguments from Democratic Deliberation"

Tom Farr is the director of the Religious Freedom Project at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs at Georgetown University. He writes with Tim Shah in the New York Times:

In 2010, the U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker invalidated a California ballot initiative for which millions of religiously motivated blacks and Latinos, among others, had voted on the same day they cast ballots for Barack Obama. The measure was Proposition 8, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The presence of religious arguments in the campaign led Judge Walker to assert that the "moral and religious views" underpinning the vote were not “rational,” rendering the measure unconstitutional.

Walker's ruling, like Obama's assertion, represents a results-oriented effort to expel religious arguments from democratic deliberation. This has been a tempting device for partisans of all stripes. To silence religiously motivated civil rights advocates like Martin Luther King Jr., Jerry Falwell once asserted that “Preachers are not called to be politicians, but soul winners.” Whatever its source, any effort to confine religious people and their ideas to an innocuous spirituality or a merely ceremonial role in public life is a threat to religious liberty and to American democracy.

Gingrich Platform Includes Presidential Commission to Protect Rights of Pro-Marriage Supporters

This is a testament to the success of our (and your!) efforts to encourage the GOP Presidential candidates to be marriage champions.

On Newt Gingrich's campaign website, he proposes a Presidential Commission on Religious Freedom which, among other things, would investigate:

#2 -- The extent to which schools from primary to university level are discriminating against religious viewpoints, restricting religious expression, or forcing students to violate their conscience by forcibly imposing beliefs about sexual orientation, gender, same sex “marriage” and abortion, to which students have constitutionally protected religious objections.

#6 -- The extent to which individuals have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed.

#8 -- The impact on religious freedom of same-sex “marriage” and non-discrimination laws, including the rights of individuals, businesses and religious institutions that have a conscientious objection to providing or engaging in services that support values they oppose.

Obviously the need for these proposals will be clear to our loyal supporters, and especially our regular NOM blog readers!