 Marriage looks to be redefined constitutionally, and religious liberty looks to be under serious attack. Just a couple years ago, in 2013, the Defense of Marriage act was struck down by a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. This has become known as the Windsor decision, a decision made without any involvement by the Solicitor General, the person appointed to represent the federal government of the United States before the Supreme Court of the United States (i.e., basically the president’s attorney).
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in the case known as Obergefell v. Hodges, which is basically four lawsuits combined into one, originating from a Cincinnati lawsuit, in which homosexual couples are suing their state for not recognizing their marriage. The decision in this case will eventually determine the legal definition of marriage in the fifty states. And again, as in the Windsor decision, one justice, Justice Anthony Kennedy, is likely to be the swing vote. Kevin DeYoung, a godly leader within evangelicalism, recently wrote, “I’m concerned that many younger Christians—ironically, often those passionate about societal transformation and social justice—do not see the connection between a traditional view of marriage and human flourishing. Many Christians…[have this] mantra...: personally opposed, but publicly none of my business. I want Christians...to see why this issue matters and why—if and when same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land--the integrity of the family [i.e., human flourishing] will be weakened and the freedom of the church will be threatened.” Yesterday, during the oral arguments, the threat to religious freedom became immediately and painfully apparent. This time, the Solicitor General, Donald Verrili, did speak on behalf of the administration and President Obama and bluntly announced that the rights of a religious school to operate on the basis of its own religious faith will survive only as an “accommodation” on a state by state basis, and only until the federal government passes its own legislation. Justice Samuel Alito asked Verrilli about the right of religious institutions to maintain tax-exempt status, citing the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Internal Revenue Service to strip Bob Jones University because of that school’s policy against interracial dating and interracial marriage (NOTE: a moral blight that the university has since rescinded). Justice Alito referenced that ruling and asked, “Would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?” Solicitor General Verrilli responded, “You know, I—I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I—I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is—it is going to be an issue.” Albert Mohler, another godly well-respected leader within evangelicalism, wrote soon thereafter, “We will soon find out just how tolerant those who preached tolerance for same-sex marriage will turn out to be, now that they are ascendant in the culture. Meanwhile, even as we were repeatedly told that warnings about threats to religious liberty were overblown, the truth came out before the Supreme Court yesterday. Take the Solicitor General at his word. ‘It’s going to be an issue.’” Comments are closed.
|
|
