by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Aug 5, 2015
On July 25th, AJC columnist Jay Bookman dismissed Georgia House Speaker David Ralston’s “Pastor Protection Bill” as an essentially meaningless symbolic gesture. I’m uncharacteristically inclined to agree with him.
In its current form the bill simply states that “[n]o minister of the gospel or cleric or religious practitioner ordained or authorized to solemnize marriages according to the usages of the denomination, when acting in his or her official religious capacity, shall be required to solemnize any marriage in violation of his or her right to free exercise of religion.” This would seem to follow pretty directly from the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, as University of Maryland law professor Mark Graber has observed.
While I’m not averse to symbolism and, indeed, regard it as an important teaching function of the law, the prospect that pastors will actually be compelled to perform same-sex marriages is a remote one. To be sure, in our current circumstances anything is possible, but that’s not one of the pressing concerns keeping me up at night.
Here are the things that, to my mind, are causes of concern:
- The tax-exempt status of churches and other faith-based institutions that remain faithful to the traditional understanding of marriage
- The eligibility of faith-based institutions (above all, schools, universities, and social service agencies) to compete on a level playing field for government funding if they continue to act in accordance with their long-held belief that marriage is between a man and a woman
- The ability of churches and other faith-based institutions—if they so choose—to demand doctrinal and behavioral conformity, not just of ministers, but of all employees
In a nutshell, I’m concerned that we’re facing a significant challenge to the ability of churches and other faith-based institutions to remain theologically and morally faithful while fully and equally participating in civil society.
And before I discuss these substantive concerns in a bit more detail, let me add a procedural worry. I fear that Speaker Ralston and many other Republicans, having been chastened by the religious freedom contretemps earlier this year in Indiana, Georgia, and elsewhere, will regard this pastor protection legislation as all they need to do. If true friends of religious liberty accept this down payment on a robust commitment to our first freedom as the full price, they will have left our religious institutions vulnerable to all sorts of threats. I recognize that some of my concerns will have to be addressed at the federal level by something like the First Amendment Defense Act, but there is no reason why Georgia could not provide similar protections at the state level. And I also recognize that laws are mere parchment barriers, weaker than constitutional provisions (which may themselves be no more than papier-mâché); neither will protect religious liberty from a public (or an elite) that has grown indifferent or hostile to it.
I turn now to the challenges, beginning with tax-exempt status. During the oral arguments for Obergefell v. Hodges, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli conceded to Justice Samuel Alito that the tax-exempt status of religious institutions that uphold the traditional understanding of marriage is “certainly going to be an issue.” The dissenters took note of this exchange. Chief Justice John Roberts said this:
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.… There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court.
Justice Clarence Thomas seconded this concern:
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.” … In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well…. 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.
Justice Samuel Alito spoke of the larger consequences of the Court’s decision:
Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences.
It 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 … 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.… 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.
Let me emphasize this last point, for it is a clear allusion to the context of Justice Alito’s exchange with the Solicitor General, which involved the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the IRS’s revocation of the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University over its policy forbidding interracial dating. If the analogy—insisted upon by the Court’s majority—between opposition to same-sex marriage and opposition to interracial marriage holds, then the former amounts to the same sort of bigotry as the latter and, perhaps, deserves the same legal treatment.
In the Bob Jones case, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause does not protect the University from the IRS’s revocation of its tax exempt status. The Court’s reasoning was that, in the first place, tax exempt status is granted under the Internal Revenue Code only to institutions and organizations that “serve a public purpose” and are not “contrary to established public policy.” While the University might well serve a public purpose, augmenting or supplanting public efforts at higher education, its practice of racial discrimination was certainly contrary to established public policy. And if free exercise claims, in the best instance, require strict scrutiny, overcoming racial discrimination is surely the kind of compelling state interest that justifies an abridgement of that right.
It doesn’t require much imagination or legal expertise to see how this line of reasoning could be applied to churches and other faith-based institutions that act “contrary to established public policy” in upholding the traditional understanding of marriage.
This doesn’t mean that the IRS must or will revoke their tax exempt status, only that it can, and that the First Amendment provides no sure defense against that action. If countering discrimination based on sexual orientation comes to be regarded as a compelling state interest, then the free exercise rights of religious institutions will likely have to give way if the IRS bows to the pressure that will surely be brought to bear on it to use its powers for that end.
I think that a case can be made on behalf of continuing to extend those exemptions, both in terms of the manifold human needs all churches address and in terms of preserving the pluralism that is the essential ground of free institutions and a free people, but we have to make that case over and over again, in the face of a faction that isn’t particularly interested in listening to it. I take some solace from the fact, that, at the moment, public opinion seems to favor religious freedom, but that delicate flower needs to be carefully cultivated.
Now, if tax exemptions are a problem, then you know eligibility for government grants will be. To be sure, this isn’t an issue for houses of worship as houses of worship (which, generally speaking are not and should not be eligible for government grants), but it is one for schools and colleges, as well as for social service agencies. While the Supreme Court has frequently upheld the channeling of government aid to religious institutions under certain circumstances (see, for example, Mitchell v. Helms, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, and the Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization case), it has also held that governments are perfectly within their rights to deny otherwise generally available aid and facilities to religious organizations (see, for example, Locke v. Davey and CLS v. Martinez).
Governments can attach any number of conditions to the aid they provide. Adoption agencies may be required to place children with couples without regard to the gender of the partners. Universities may be required to provide housing—if they provide it at all—to couples that are married in the eyes of the state, regardless of whether those marriages have the sanction of the sponsoring religious body. And if you put the recent EEOC ruling on sexual orientation together with the way in which the Department of Education is interpreting Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, it’s pretty easy to see how a lot of government money could be riding on conformity with what appears to be the new normal in regard to sexual orientation and marriage.
For higher education institutions, access to government money is a big deal. According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, 55% of spending on undergraduate education in 2009-10 came from federal aid (which amounted to $124 billion that year). While there are a few colleges (Hillsdale and Grove City, for example) that take pride in not accepting a dime of federal money, most would at the moment not be able to survive without it.
Again, this doesn’t have to happen. Congress could pass legislation that protects religious freedom, or agencies could voluntarily refrain from impinging on it. But pressure will be brought to bear on behalf of those who, as they would put it, don’t want to subsidize discrimination.
This brings me to my next concern, the religious hiring rights of churches and faith-based organizations. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act permits them to take religion into account when hiring. And the “ministerial exception” based in the First Amendment—recently vindicated in the Hosanna-Tabor case—means that a number of federal laws granting employees enforceable rights cannot be applied to those a church holds out as ministers. But these provisions do not provide comprehensive protection of religious hiring rights. There is certainly a gap between the legislatively-acknowledged right to hire coreligionists and the constitutionally-grounded ministerial exception. What if someone who signs a statement of faith as a condition of employment comes out as gay and/or enters into a same-sex marriage? Unlike the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the recent EEOC ruling about sexual orientation discrimination does not contain exceptions for religious organizations. It isn’t at all clear that Courts will find that the Free Exercise Clause will protect them from EEOC complaints, in the event that these organizations choose to enforce doctrinal or behavioral requirements on their employees.
Now, this parade of horribles does not have to march into our sanctuaries. The threats that loom on the horizon do not have to materialize. Those who currently hold the upper hand in government may practice forbearance, either out of a genuine commitment to pluralism and religious freedom or out a fear of overplaying their hand and alienating public opinion.
We on our part must be both vigilant and winsome, vigorously defending and advocating for our rights when they are threatened and offering a model of the charity and forbearance that we hope others will also display. Our society is pluralistic, reflecting deep disagreements about how we ought to live. History teaches us that faith doesn’t require hegemony to prosper. But it does require that those who have it live it, loving their neighbors as themselves. There is room both for political and legal action, and for the building and maintenance of personal relationships. If we forgo the former, there may be no room for the latter. If we focus on the former, we run the risk that those parchment barriers will be swept away by the animosity we have done nothing to disarm and dispel.
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Jul 29, 2015
Watch a recording of the event here.
Georgia Center for Opportunity was privileged to partner with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in co-hosting an event on the issue of prisoner reentry at AEI’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, July 28th.
The event featured two panels: The first consisting of non-profits leaders who have faced challenges and successes in helping former prisoners successfully reintegrate into society, and the second featuring government leaders who have similarly faced challenges and successes in working to reform the criminal justice system itself.
GCO’s Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Eric Cochling, moderated the first panel that featured four non-profit leaders, including Craig DeRoche of Justice Fellowship, Harriet McDonald of The Doe Fund, Bryan Kelley of Prison Entrepreneurship Program, and Harold Dean Trulear of Healing Communities. The panelists discussed such themes as the importance for Americans to view prisoners and people with a criminal record as a valuable asset to society, the importance of work and its role in promoting human dignity and successful reintegration, the necessity for returning citizens to experience a change in attitudes and values to avoid recidivating, and the role of the community in embracing returning citizens and “walking with” them in their journey.
The second panel was moderated by Robert Doar, Morgridge Fellow in Poverty Studies at AEI, and featured three government leaders: Georgia’s own Jay Neal, former state representative and current executive director of the Governor’s Office of Transition, Support and Reentry, Gary Mohr, commissioner of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, and Chauncey Parker, special policy advisor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. This panel highlighted specific approaches that states have taken to improve prisoner reentry as a means of promoting public safety, including instilling the mindset that reentry begins at the point of arrest, basing decisions on data instead of knee-jerk reactions, facilitating better connections between family members and incarcerated loved ones, and instilling the importance of viewing offenders as human beings among the criminal justice workforce.
Watch the event and gain a better understanding of how effective collaboration between families, faith communities, service providers, and the government, as well as a changed perception of the ones they are serving, is essential for promoting successful reintegration among returning citizens.
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Jul 6, 2015
I have to confess that I wasn’t all that surprised by the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which held that the 14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection clauses imply a right to marry (due process) and require that that right be extended to those who wish to marry same-sex partners (equal protection). Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote for the narrow (5-4) majority, had pretty much been telegraphing his intention since Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and Romer v. Evans (1996), and indeed since co-authoring the infamous “mystery passage” in the joint opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). In the former two cases, he described opposition to homosexuality as expressing only an “irrational animus,” thereby placing the letters of the Apostle Paul, not to mention millennia of both secular and religious teaching from a variety of traditions, in the same category as the most hateful inarticulate screed scrawled on a bathroom wall. Indeed, in his Lawrence dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the clear implication of the majority’s reasoning was that, its protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, there was no constitutional principle that could justify restricting marriage to opposite sex couples.[1] In Planned Parenthood, Kennedy and his co-authors laid the foundation by defining liberty in terms of what has come to be known as expressive individualism: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
Now, my undergraduates understand and are even capable of reproducing Justice Kennedy’s reasoning. Of course, they state it much more simply: “I should have the right to marry whomever I please.” This straightforward combination of liberty and equality—our two American watchwords—explains why so many people exuberantly welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision.
But if they had given some thought both to the understanding of marriage and the canons of legal and judicial reasoning—as we should rightly expect of Justice Kennedy and his colleagues—my undergraduates, not to say the American people in general, might have had second thoughts.
Let me begin with the second point. The 14th Amendment Due Process clause has been used to protect our liberties against certain kinds of government encroachment. While the language of the clause is procedural—and thus applies most obviously (as does its 5th Amendment counterpart) to judicial proceedings—it has long been held also to protect substantive rights, hence the almost oxymoronic term “substantive due process.” When deciding which liberties were substantively protected by this clause, the Court, in order to discipline itself so as to leave as little room as possible for free-floating judicial creativity, has held that the 14th Amendment protects only those liberties (as Chief Justice John Roberts says in his dissent, quoting a very strong precedent) that are “’objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.’” I repeat: if the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment is not directly tied to history or tradition, if there are not some authoritative standards to guide and control the justices, then we run the risk of liberty being whatever a majority (in this case, a “bare majority,” which is how Justice Kennedy speaks of narrow 5-4 majorities of whose conclusions he does not approve) the Court thinks or feels it is. Absent these standards, we no longer have the rule of law or settled precedent, but rather that rule of judicial majorities, giving and withholding protection as they see fit. Many people might approve of the substantive result this time, but who knows where the next such decision will take us. That Anthony Kennedy thinks he knows what history tells us about the expanding and changing definition of liberty reveals a breathtaking (and, to my mind, entirely unwarranted) confidence in his judgment.
But, you might ask, isn’t the freedom to marry rooted in our traditions? Hasn’t the Supreme Court, in a number of cases cited by Justice Kennedy, upheld that very right? Well, yes, but the right to marry rooted in our traditions is the right to traditional marriage (that is, between a man and a woman). It isn’t the right to redefine marriage so as to encompass same-sex (and perhaps other) relationships. The problem with Justice Kennedy’s opinion is that his insistence that “the nature of marriage” involves two (and only two) people derives what force it has from the traditional understanding that “the nature of marriage” involved a man and a woman. Having jettisoned the tradition on one point in the name of an alleged individual right to marry whomever one pleases, it is hard, if not impossible, consistently to preserve it on another. Indeed, his mysterious understanding of liberty—“defin[ing] one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life”—would seem to leave more than enough room for each of us to form his or her own understanding of how and under what circumstances we wish to be related to others.
Now, as Justice Thomas points out in his dissent, the traditional understanding of liberty, by giving us a claim—albeit not an absolute claim—against government interference in our lives offers some, perhaps even much, of the freedom Kennedy has in mind. There’s a lot I can do with other consenting adults in the privacy of my own home. But as Kennedy recognizes, marriage isn’t just a freedom in this sense; there are all sorts of benefits, from tax advantages to child custody arrangements that accompany it, as well as an apparently publicly ascribed “dignity” that attends marriage, as opposed to “living in sin,” as we used, quaintly, to put it. So what’s at stake is not so much a liberty protected by the Due Process clause as equal access to benefits—leaving aside the issue of dignity, which makes for problems all its own—guaranteed by the Equal Protection clause.
Unfortunately, Justice Kennedy doesn’t undertake the kind of legal analysis that usually accompanies equal protection claims. There is no talk either of a “rational basis” for a legal distinction applied to an unprotected class of people or of the “strict scrutiny” of a distinction involving a protected class. To be sure, he has denied in past cases that laws that single out gays can have even a rational basis. Perhaps he doesn’t think he has to repeat himself here, as the irrational animus is, in his view, self-evident. But however much refusing to serve a gay in a restaurant or singling out for legal sanction expressions of gay sexuality may reflect such an animus, it is not at all self-evident that adhering to the traditional definition of marriage does so.
To be sure, there are plausible and perhaps even good arguments on both sides of the marriage issue. But those are arguments to be weighed and evaluated by a legislature, not settled conclusively by a court. By short-circuiting the political process, Justice Kennedy and his colleagues in the majority have forestalled a full and fair airing of the issues and have virtually guaranteed that those on the losing judicial side will question the legitimacy of the result so many of their fellows are celebrating. Further, those who approve of the result will be tempted to regard those who disagree with them simply as sore losers who don’t deserve any respect, which will serve only to poison still more of our public square.
There are other benefits as well that we’ve lost by not working this disagreement out legislatively. A legislature with men and women of good will on both sides might have arranged for robust guarantees of religious liberty for those who conscientiously dissented from a pro-same sex marriage outcome. And rather than opening up a Pandora’s box of different marital arrangements as Justice Kennedy’s conception of liberty does, a legislature might have carefully reworked the traditional definition of marriage to accommodate in some way the genuine personal challenges Justice Kennedy so eloquently describes at the beginning of his opinion. But feeling for the aggrieved and finding a way to help them is the work of legislators, responsible to the voters, not judges who serve for life.
That we have operationally and happily ceded so much truly legislative authority to unelected judges is, to my mind, the most troubling result of Obergefell. In my next post, I will discuss some of the religious liberty challenges that we will, in short order, face.
[1] Justice Kennedy was similarly disingenuous in Windsor v. U.S. (2013), which struck down the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Marriage, he averred, was traditionally understood to be a state matter, which was convenient at the moment, but swept away with nary a mention in Obergefell.
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Jul 1, 2015
Thank you to the generous donors who helped us reach our most recent fundraising goal of $80,000, unlocking an additional $80,000 in matching funds to support Georgia Center for Opportunity. These funds are already being used to promote family stability, access to quality education, and steady employment.
As we close out our fiscal year and look to the year ahead, we count our blessings for all who choose to invest in our work. With your support, GCO is influencing the key pillars to the well-being of Georgians – education, employment, and family stability. We’re focused on the “success cycle,” where these three pillars work together to dramatically increase the odds that an individual will lead a fulfilling life, avoid poverty and government dependency, and raise children who will follow the same path.
When we’re successful, fewer Georgians will be living in a condition of dependence, a higher percentage will be enjoying earned success and the fruits of their labor, more children will be ready for college and a career, and more families will have the economic and relational resources to thrive.
We look forward your continued partnership in the year ahead. You can stay informed on the impact of your gifts by subscribing to GCO email updates and following us on Facebook.
by Georgia Center for Opportunity | Jun 4, 2015
Last summer, the Obama Administration proposed a rule adding sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI—get used to the acronym) to the list of classes protected against discrimination by federal contractors. In so doing, it built upon other anti-discrimination executive orders issued by Presidents Johnson and Nixon. The difference between the Obama Administration’s rule and those promulgated by its predecessors is that the latter explicitly provided exemptions for religious employers, who were permitted to engage in mission-sensitive hiring even if they provided goods and services to the federal government. Under the old rules, a faith-based organization could hire co-religionists to work, for example, in a federally-funded Welfare-to-Work program (and, of course, could quite rightly not discriminate in providing benefits to clients). Under the new rules, finalized in April, there is no exemption for faith-based organizations, many of whom would seem to have to abandon their historical commitments to sexual fidelity in the context of man-woman marriage if they wish to continue to be eligible for federal contracts.
And now the other (or another, perhaps the first of many) shoe is about to drop: there is word that the rule applied to federal contractors will soon be extended to grant recipients, at least in respect to one area of federal activity, humanitarian aid. As this move has not received a lot of attention (perhaps designedly so), it is not clear how far-reaching this change is. At the moment, it seems relatively safe to say that eligibility for some grants will likely be conditioned on a renunciation of traditional religious teaching (not just Christian, but also Jewish and Muslim) regarding human sexuality.
What prevents the Obama Administration from extending this requirement to additional categories of grant recipients is not at all clear. Or rather it is clear: only pushback from the friends of religious freedom will prevent the federal government from eventually conditioning all federal aid on “non-discrimination,” even at the expense of fidelity to traditional religious teaching.
How far could this eventually go? Consider, for example, the extraordinarily heavy dependence of most colleges and universities (there are a few noteworthy exceptions, among them Grove City, Hillsdale, and Wyoming Catholic) on federal aid. Suppose that colleges and universities that included behavioral expectations in their statements of faith were told that they could not hold their employees to these expectations, as doing so would constitute SOGI-based discrimination. Some might stand firm and join the proud ranks of the non-federally funded. Others, I fear, would feel compelled to assure their (merely) institutional survival by giving in. The result would likely be a much less genuinely diverse array of higher education options and a loss of a great intellectual and moral source of religious life in this country.
And that’s not the end of it. Don’t forget the brief exchange between Justice Samuel Alito and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli in the oral argument for the Obergefell v. Hodges (same-sex marriage) case. Under questioning by Justice Alito, Verrilli conceded that the tax-exempt status of religious institutions that did not recognize same-sex marriage could or would be an issue. For those who regard tax exempt status not as an acknowledgement of freedom from state interference but as an instrument of public policy, aimed at promoting the public good (as they conceive it), it’s only a few baby steps from denying government funding to revoking a tax exemption. I’d like to think that many of us will continue to give at the same level to the charities we favor regardless of whether we receive a tax break for doing so, but not all of us will. At the very least, roughly 30% of that charitable contribution would likely be taken by taxes, and that’s only from the contributor. Another chunk would be taken from the formerly tax-exempt institution. Is your favorite faith-based institution prepared to deal with the loss of a significant portion of its annual budget?
Some might argue that it’s healthy and bracing for faith-based institutions to get back to basics, to have a fresh and direct experience of what it means to be a pilgrim, sojourner, or (as Duke University theologian Stanley Hauerwas is fond of putting it) resident alien. Perhaps. Even more, it might be clarifying for the soulless Leviathan of the ever-expanding modern regulatory and administrative state that would reveal itself for the secularizing monster it really is. Perhaps.
But pardon me for continuing to harbor the hope that genuine religious pluralism that flourishes in a healthy civil society is good not only for the churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, schools, colleges, universities, and charities that inhabit it, but also for the country that plays host to them.
That is what is threatened by the Obama Administration’s narrow and crabbed vision of, if not actual disrespect for, religious liberty. We face the prospect of a secular (which is not the same as neutral) state whose reach into our lives and communities is constantly expanding, not as a partner with distinctive and diverse local institutions and organizations, but as their master, dictating the terms on which they will serve the needs of those who use and depend upon them. The genuinely distinctive—religiously and morally traditional—institutions will be treated, not as partners, but as adversaries, at best pushed to the margins, at worst run out of business.
I hope and expect all institutions will love and serve all of God’s children, but will defend their right to do so in ways that are faithful to their understanding of Scripture.
