By Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger
“So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.”
-Gary North, “The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right,” (Christianity and Civilization: The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, Number 1, Spring, 1982)
In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S 1 (1967), the Supreme Court held that Virginia’s prohibition of interracial marriage violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “The freedom to marry,” wrote Chief Justice Warren, “has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” 366 U.S. at 12. Many people were hoping that the Court would formally accord that status to same-sex marriage last month. But it did not happen. Edith Windsor will receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax refunds from the federal government, but the Court did not find it necessary to address the issue of same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, and elected not to do so. United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307 (June 26, 2013).
While that central constitutional issue remains unresolved, opponents of same-sex marriage are on the move. The Freedom Federation, a coalition of civil and religious right-wing organizations ranging from Americans for Prosperity to Wallbuilders, has issued a pre-emptive strike in the form of a signed letter declaring that “the Supreme Court has no authority to redefine marriage… .” The letter, which can be found on the Freedom Federation website, asserts that should the Court grant legal recognition to same-sex marriage, it “will be acting beyond its proper constitutional role,” and concludes with the vaguely ominous warning that “this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross.”
We have witnessed in recent years an increasing willingness by state legislatures to adopt nullification statutes, facially unconstitutional but politically potent. Now the religious right has determined to extend the nullification doctrine to the judicial branch, employing the language of religious freedom to hide a theocratic dominionist vision of government and society.
In 2004 and again in 2005, legislation known as the Constitution Restoration Act was introduced in both the House and the Senate. If adopted, the act would have stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to consider any case challenging the acknowledgment of God as a source of law by any federal, state or local governmental unit. The act would have also mandated impeachment for any violation. The legislation did not make it out of committee, but its intention was crystal clear: the rejection of the secularist notion of separation of church and state.
The drafting of the statute was largely the work of Herb Titus, a lawyer who served as the first dean of the law school at Regent University and who famously represented Judge Roy Moore, the Alabama jurist removed as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court for his refusal to comply with a federal court order compelling the removal from the courthouse rotunda of a monument to the Ten Commandments.
The failure of the attempted legislative assault on established jurisprudence construing the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, combined with the pronounced hatred of the LBGT community by many religious fundamentalists, virtually guaranteed that something resembling the Freedom Federation letter would emerge when it did. The co-author of the letter is Mat Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of the Liberty University School of Law. In March of this year, Liberty Counsel welcomed the Florida Faith & Works Coalition to its member organizations. The Coalition represents approximately 600 conservative pastors engaged in promoting universal Christian dominionism. From its website: “Subduing and having dominion over all the earth commands responsibility over the entire animate and inanimate world including the moral values that form the basis of society. We affirm that, historically, America was established as a Christian nation and its policies were based on biblical principles. The guardian of those biblical principles has always been His church. And His church, in recent history, has passively abdicated its guardianship responsibility.”
The arguments in the Freedom Federation letter are boldly theocratic. First, it is urged that marriage solely between a man and a woman is mandated by “natural moral law,” a product of reason. But it approaches natural law in the same manner that Justice Scalia approaches the Constitution, as a rigid and dead body of law. (It also fails to identity which system or systems of natural law it endorses, but that’s another topic.) The truth is that our understanding of natural law theory and of the Constitution have evolved precisely because reason evolves as it is informed by knowledge and experience.
The letter next asserts that natural moral law is “affirmed, fulfilled, and elevated by Christian teaching,” thus adding the biblical foundation for the treatment of marriage between a man and a woman as divinely ordained and not subject to expansion or modification by positive law. This is not only an argument against a secular view of marriage; in accordance with dominionist theology, it is also a rejection of religious pluralism.
Finally, the letter claims that same-sex marriage, once legitimized, will inevitably lead to its compulsory recognition by Christians, thereby undermining freedom of religion and conscience. This position is demonstrably absurd, of course, since no religious sect has ever been compelled to grant sacramental status to any marital union that conflicts with its own doctrinal requirements. And in the eyes of the law, no marriage has ever required religious approval as a condition of legitimacy.
Fundamentalist Christians must recognize by now that they are losing the battle against the ultimate acceptance of same-sex marriage. But they are also patient and vigilant. The Freedom Federation letter is a reminder that the preservation of secular government and religious freedom will also require patience and vigilance.
The American Taliban is alive and well and spreading like a virus.
Glenn wrote: “The American Taliban is alive and well and spreading like a virus.”
This is one of the most irrational comments produced from Mike Appleton’s article.
The Taliban is a militant religious group who uses arms coupled with political power to force their perspective of a pure Islamic State. The Taliban restricts women’s rights to work and school, uses amputations and executions to enforce Islamic law, they censor internet, radio, and television, they force non-Muslims to wear symbols identifying them as such, and they harbor other terrorists who fight for Jihad. Today they are strictly a Stateless terrorist group.
The Freedom Federation does not resemble the Taliban. They fight for women’s freedom to work and be educated, they teach that mercy triumphs over judgment, they believe in freedom of speech and fight to preserve it in much more effective ways than the ACLU, they do not believe non-Christians should be forced to wear symbols to identify them to the rest of society, they do not harbor terrorists of any kind, but rather they fight terrorism. The furtherance of bigotry against religious sentiment by articles like this one and by comments like Glenn’s is truly discouraging to those of us who desire a true democracy based upon pluralistic principles of civil government. Those who fight for freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion are seriously misguided individuals who have a weak grasp on the important principles of law that would secure a civil government that is tolerant of everyone and secures liberty for everyone in society.
Mr. Appleton, with all due respect, I find several problems with your analysis.
You start with a quote from Gary North, a modern leader of the Reconstructionist movement whose eschatology is very different from the mainstream religious right. His postmillennial view leads to a view of government that is more like the theocratic rule of Geneva during Calvin’s time where the city burned people at the stake for believing and teaching that the Trinity was not an accurate understanding of the Godhead. It is not proper to quote Gary North as illustrative of the religious right in America. It is like quoting someone from the Klu Klux Klan and pretending they are representative of the religious people of mainstream America.
You then proceed to cite Loving v. Virginia, ignoring the fact that same sex unions are fundamentally different from opposite sex unions, especially in regards to the ability to reproduce and create the fundamental building block of any civilized society — the family. From Loving: “The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.” Notice how the court based its reasoning upon the assumption that “only interracial marriage involving white persons is prohibited.” Clearly they did not have same sex unions in mind at all or any kind of discrimination issues against homosexuals. To springboard off Loving is fallacious thinking.
Lastly, you connect the solidarity letter supported by the Freedom Federation.
http://www.lc.org/media/9980/attachments/marriage_solidarity_statement_062613.pdf
For what it is worth, I find myself in agreement with this letter. You portray it as dangerous, when, in fact, it is a rational legal response to a runaway secular court system which attempts to usurp the power of the legislature and create laws on its own, bypassing the democratic process. The letter itself shows how marriage predates Christianity and other religions, and that civil governments need to work properly to preserve what has been worked out by thousands of legal analysts over thousands of years concerning marriage. They should not be jumping all over a philosophical fad that is slightly over a decade old that is based for the most part on sexual liberation and hedonism.
This letter was written by lawyers with excellent legal minds concerning Constitutional issues. I have a high level of respect for both Herb Titus and Mat Staver. What you should be more concerned about is a segment of society who are not involved with this letter. There are some in society who would be moved toward revolution and civil war if the courts continue on its path toward tyrannical rule that tramples on religious freedom. In a democratic society, we need to be able to hear the sentiments of religious people as well as non-religious people and avoid the kind of bigotry that would lead someone to presume that something is evil about religious people and that it is religious people who are a threat to our way of life.
I guess I find this less scary than others; it sounds like childish foot stamping to me. They say, this is a line they “cannot and will not cross!”
Bull. Unlike the Civil War and slavery, these people have no financial stake or livelihood stake in gay marriage. They do not make a dime or lose a dime either way.
They may be unhappy, but I just don’t think that unhappiness will rise to the level of violence (or have the breadth of appeal) to result in any kind of insurrection. A few unbalanced crazies are definitely something to worry about, but they shoot up schools or theaters and fire into crowds because they are mentally ill, not because they are making rational judgments about a cause.
The plumbers, office managers, TV cameramen and copier repairmen of the world are not going to throw away their lives over gay marriage, at least I don’t see it. They have too much to lose: Their children, their livelihood, their freedom. For what? They know they don’t have the numbers to stop the tide from coming in.
To me, this kind of angry yelling is just the anguish we see when somebody knows they have lost and won’t ever get what they want. Religion is still popular, but fundamentalist literalist religion in the USA is on the road to extinction, and they know it.
The danger is to individuals, and a matter for law enforcement, but I do not believe any charismatic leader can get them to their promised land; the “threat” of gay marriage to the typical religious American is not worth any significant sacrifice to thwart. Write letters, carry a sign, donate $20, shout at a rally? Sure. Pick up a gun and march into battle? No way, not unless they are mentally ill or suicidal.
The lengths some folks will go….
States don’t have rights. People (human people) do. The Freedom Federation is one of those 1984 double speak organizations that is actually anti freedom and is committed to destroying freedom in the name of Christ or shall I say their version of Christ or god or whoever deity they actually worship. They are angry and brutal. If they could they would bring back the Inquisistion but this time they would be in charge.
The problem is that anyone who wraps himself in god is always given the benefit of the doubt, deference. We are tolerant of any statement no matter how brutal or irrational because its his/her religion. We look the other way when it comes to all sorts of brutality that is done in the name of religion. “Its their religion or its their culture”, we say. Deference to religious “leaders” in the context of government policy is wrong. It is clearly giving preference and privilege based on ones religious status.
We used to stand for something in this country, the CONSTITUTION. Even Churches used to recognize it but now that they have tasted the money that comes with bending the establishment clause to fund their schools and their charities they want it all the money and the power. Theocracies are dangerous for all humans. You don’t need to look far to see that.
Has anyone noticed as politicians have become more and more publically “religious” they have also become more and more interested in spying on us and locking people up that don’t agree with them. Their policies have become less human centered more brutual and more corporate.
There are many types of dominionists, some religionists and some secular.
They have found themselves in bed when they delve into Ayn Rand pontifications of “holy selfishness.”
Which is another word for plutocracy.
The “it’s murder” defense is hypocritical. We kill people everyday in this world, even innocent people. A lot of our society loves killing, sometimes so much, they take a bunch of guns and kill kindergarteners. That is an obscene problem we should be concerned with.
The same reasoning, for me, applies to abortion. Nobody is pro abortion! There is a difference abortion and abortion rights. If your religious sect belief is pro life, then you follow that reverently. But that is as far as you can go with respect to the rights of others. It’s very possible to believe in the right for someone to choose an abortion and not believe in this solution for ones self.
You cannot possibly impose your belief on another’s beliefs. You only have a right to try, but not to impose if it’s not wanted.
Sorry RANDYJET, forgot to capitalize.
Dear RandyJay. It’s the same reasoning that allows one to be ignorant. It’s your right to be what you are. Stay stupid.
“this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross.”
—————–
the line was crossed long ago, that’s why we now have the Lurch of the Sturch. The loss is the loss of respect of the rest of the freedom loving Humanist World along with their desire to adopt any viable freedom expressing Democracy…after all, look where it gets you, kowtowing and whoring to the oil nations and Walmarts of the planet, selling our people to profiteers who traffic in Labour like pimps traffic in flesh…..
Interesting counterviews by Randyjet & ARE!!
Off topic question: how would plural marriages work in America? I am assuming that Mormons only allowed men to have more than one wife, but refused to allow women to have more than one husband?
Nevertheless, who has the legal and/or moral right to defind a marriage? Legally=states? Morally=??? Are we becoming a nation without morals, where everything goes?
If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for everything…..
Nations aren’t in the business of defining “morals.” Follow whatever moral imperative you wish; it’s your right. However, you cannot force others to live by your religious dictates, because we have a Constitution that says you cannot.
Time Enough For Love is my favorite.
Randyjet: “I see no rational or governmental reason that benefits the state to have same sex marriage.”
And that’s why you aren’t a judge or — thank heavens — a Supreme Court justice. They’re typically required to provide something other than ALL CAPS as justification for their declarations.
Actually I think the thing that bothers me the most is the fundamental dishonesty in asserting that Loving stated that gay marriage is a right. There is no possible way to get there with that decision. It is like other dishonest formulations such as saying that all immigrants, legal and illegal are the same. Nobody is fooled by that, and if you are you should literally have your head examined or realize that people know that you are a dishonest person. It is like saying a crook and an honest person are legally and morally the same and should be treated the same.
Marriage is a legal contract and institution granted by the state for its ends as well as that of the people involved. I still have the position the Democratic Party had in 2004 and think that civil unions are the way to go. If a state decides to define marriage through the legislature to allow same sex marriage that is their right to do so. I cannot see the advantage to the state in that, but it is their right after all. It is extreme judicial activism to use the judgements of the courts to redefine marriage which is the province of the legislature. I was truly astounded that the courts ORDERED the legislature on how to conduct its affairs and what laws to pass. I think that any person would have some problems with that one especially on the seperation of powers doctrine. If the courts can do that, why bother with a legislature at all? Just have a judge write the laws and save the money.
It’s really not about “the state’s interest” in regulating marriage. I know it will come as a shock to some of you, but governent exists to protect the rights of the individual.
I see Juliet has not bothered to even start reading the Constitution. I suggest she read the preamble.
“She” has read the Constitution. “She” knows that your religious beliefs cannot be imposed on her because of it. Because we (the People) have decided that we are not a country that follows any particular religious belief, and there is no non-religious reason why two consenting adults cannot marry, simply because their genitalia are the same, it would be unconstitutional to have laws directing otherwise.
Juliet N I am amazed that you are so ignorant of my beilefs or can think you know them. I will repeat once again after many other times, I am an atheist and I really dislike all religion, including YOURS. So your argument fails off the bat and displays your bigotry and ignorance for all of us. Thank you.
Then to say that the Consitution allows for gay marriage flies in the face of over 400 years of US history and practice. and law. Let us assume that the 14th amendment made all discrimination of all kinds illegal. Then why was the 19th amendment needed at all? It was not considered discrimination to deny women the right to vote, yet the amendment was passed to affrim that right specifially. Now if you wish to pass an amendment allowing for gay marriage, THEN I would agree that it would be legal. There were no court precedents at all to overturn the marriage laws before some courts ruled and it is incredible that you think that we can substitute judges opinions for the legislature in making law. In MA it got even worse, when the one vote majority ordered the legislature to make new law! Even if I were for gay marriage, I would have fought against that just on principle alone.
The fact is that the written law did not change, but only a few judicial opinions. When Warren overturned the opinion on segregation which he knew would be a fundamental change in US law and practice, he had the wisdom to ensure that it was a unanimous opinion. To simply change ALL laws, precedent, and tradition with a one vote majority on most state court rulings on this matter, it shows an incredible hubris and overreach. in fact, the Brown vs Topeka decision simply reversed the SCOTUS ruling which threw out the 14th amendment which the SCOTUS had NO right to do, and that opinion simply restored the law. You can show no such precedent or law that allowed for alternative types of marriage, though the US blackmailed the Mormons into giving up polygamy. If gay marriage is a right, then most certainly polygamy is a right as well and THAT has a real tradition, in our laws, and religions. I do not think either gay marriage or polygamy is a right, but if a state wishes to allow it,then it is within their power to do so.
If you were as intelligent as you think you are, you’d realize I was addressing Arthur. The things you’ve written, thus far, don’t merit any real consideration on my part. Keep capitalizing, though. It shows what an Internet bada$$ you are.
Have a nice day.
all they lack at this point is a single charismatic leader. georgie boy didn’t quite live up to expectations.
I think I am with the majority consensus here in saying these folks are truly scary. Robert Heinlein said it best:
I too love Heinlein, but his politics left a lot to be desired. Stranger in a Strange Land is a masterpiece of sci-fi.
smh@ the hypocrisy
Great article Mike. This sounds a lot like the American Taliban. As Gene suggested, scary.
I see no rational or governmental reason that benefits the state to have same sex marriage. It is absurd and a LIE to say that same sex marriage was considered a RIGHT in the Loving decision. The term marriage at the time of Loving refered ONLY to one man/one woman union. Gay marriage had not even been thought of at the time, and in fact, gay sex was held by that same court to be ILLEGAL. The last decision simply stated the fact that the states are the ones who determine and define marriage. The Congress used the power of statehood to compel the Mormons to give up plural marriages, so that was the rational and means to get around the full faith and credit clause that would have been created with polygamy. Now we all can have fun with state laws that are not followed or denied validity in other states.
If marriage is a right unfettered by the state except for limited provisions, then plural marriages also must be a right as well. There is no reason to deny plural marriages if any marriage arrangement is a right that the state cannot infringe upon. In fact, polygamny has been around in the US a lot longer than same sex marriage and had legal sanction longer too. So there can be no reason to deny that as well if you think gay marriage is now a right and the state has little of no right to regulate or deny it.
Gene, I hadn’t heard of it either. Who knows what other similarly scary proposals are lurking in committees. At some point, someone wii undoubtedly try to attach it at the last moment to something like a farm bill.
The Constitution Restoration Act? I missed that one, Mike. Pardon the pun, but holy crap. That’s one of the scarier proposals I’ve ever heard of.
We must be ever vigilant against the encroachment of theocrats and attempts to erode the Separation of Church and State.