Interview with Jeff Sharlet: The Secret Political Reach Of ‘The Family’ (National Public Radio)
The Secret Political Reach Of ‘The Family’
This is FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross.
The fundamentalist group The Family has operated secretively with the help of influential congressmen and senators who are members of the group to promote their anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-free-market ideas in America and other parts of the world, but two sex scandals involving people connected with The Family -Nevada Senator John Ensign and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford – have brought public attention to the group.
Bart Stupak and Joe Pitts are members of The Family. They introduced the amendment to the House health care reform bill that would prevent funds appropriated from the act to cover abortion and go to any insurance company that covers abortion.
The Family is also connected to proposed anti-gay legislation in Uganda that could sentence, quote, repeat offenders to the death penalty. That family connection is revealed in new reporting by my guest, Jeff Sharlet. Sharlet is the author of the bestseller “The Family” and is a contributing editor for Harper’s. He’s been investigating The Family for years.
We recorded our interview yesterday, with an update this morning, after the news about John Ensign on “Nightline” last night. We’re going to hear that interview in a minute. We’re just having a little bit of an audio problem. So we’ll have that for you, momentarily.
Read the full interview here: http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=120746516
The Dangerous Idea of Protecting Religions from “Defamation” (USCIRF)
A Threat to Universal Human Rights Standards
November 11, 2009 – WASHINGTON, D.C. – In advance of the upcoming vote on this issue in the UN General Assembly, USCIRF today issued the following Policy Focus explaining the problems with the idea that religions should be protected from “defamation.”
Executive Summary
Over the past decade, countries from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) have been working through the United Nations system to advance the problematic idea that there should be laws against the so-called “defamation of religions.” Although touted as a solution to the very real problems of religious persecution and discrimination, the OIC-sponsored UN resolutions on this issue instead provide justification for governments to restrict religious freedom and free expression. They also provide international legitimacy for existing national laws that punish blasphemy or otherwise ban criticism of a religion, which often have resulted in gross human rights violations. These resolutions deviate sharply from universal human rights standards by seeking to protect religious institutions and interpretations, rather than individuals, and could help create a new international anti-blasphemy norm.
In addition to seeking a new norm through these resolutions, OIC countries have argued in various UN contexts that existing international standards prohibiting advocacy of hatred and incitement already outlaw “defamation of religions.” However, the provisions on which they rely—Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)—provide only limited exceptions to the fundamental freedoms of expression and religion. These provisions were intended to protect individuals from violence or discrimination, not to protect religious institutions or ideas from criticism, and they should not be expanded to cover allegedly religiously defamatory speech. Such an expansion, which unfortunately may have been lent support by new language on negative religious stereotyping and incitement in a recent UN Human Rights Council freedom of expression resolution, would undermine international human rights guarantees, including the freedom of religion. It also would undermine the institutions that protect universal human rights worldwide.
Please click here to download USCIRF Policy Focus – The Dangerous Idea of Protecting Religions from “Defamation”
USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal government commission. USCIRF Commissioners are appointed by the President and the leadership of both political parties in the Senate and the House of Representatives. USCIRF’s principal responsibilities are to review the facts and circumstances of violations of religious freedom internationally and to make policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State and Congress.
News Source: http://www.uscirf.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2819&Itemid=126
INTERVIEW: John Marcotte, Author of the 2010 California Protection of Marriage Act
Rob Cockerham is the genius behind the website Cockeyed.com, which answers all kinds of questions. I first became a fan of the site back in 2004 when I was trying to visualize the size of an acre. Since then, I’ve been amazed at Rob’s “High Profile Sculpture Replacement” experiments, and American Idol Judges costume and groundbreaking scientific experiments. So I was particularly glad that he was willing to share an interview he recently conducted with John Marcotte, the proponent of the “2010 California Marriage Protection Act” which is currently in the signature gathering phase. While it doesn’t have much chance of passing, through this satirical approach, Marcotte underscores the reason why there are constitutional protections that should be beyond the reach of the “power of the majority.”
Could you imagine what it would be like if your neighbors voted that the state held this kind of power over your marriage? According to the recent California Supreme Court decision, they do. Regardless of what you think about marriage, this potential erosion of civil rights should concern you. DISCLAIMER: The following does not necessarily reflect the views of RLTV or it’s Advisory Board. Editor
The interview originally appeared at http://www.cockeyed.com/citizen/divorce/divorce.php
Rob Cockerham: John Marcotte. You’ve filed a petition with the Secretary of State, in an effort to get a voter’s initative on the California 2010 ballot.
John Marcotte: Yes. Filed the paperwork on September 1. It’s the “2010 California Marriage Protection Act.” I am trying to ban divorce in the state of California.
RC: Ok. So your act, if it became law, would make marriage undissolvable.
John: Exactly. The only exception would be if the marriage was “voidable” — if you married an 8-year-old, you don’t get to keep her. She goes back on the shelf. You can’t marry the mentally incapacitated, etc.
RC: Ah, ok, so most normal marriages would be irreversable.
John: 99.99% of all marriages would be set in stone. It’s a return to traditional values.
RC: Wow, that is amazing. Could it really happen? What steps remain to make this initiative into a valid, enforced law?
John: I am trying to extend the good work done with Proposition 8 last year. It could really happen. The United States has not always had divorce as an institution the way we do now. As a ballot initiative it bypasses the legislature and the governor. It’s the will of the people made law.
RC: How long has divorce been around?
John: As a concept, pretty much forever, but in the past, divorces were at the very least difficult to get and frowned upon by society. Now they pass them out like Tic-Tacs.
RC: Who is providing the bulk of funding for this initiative?
John: It began as a self-funded initiative, but we’ve been collecting donations and already recouped a fair percentage of the filing fees. We hope to collect more donations and maybe start selling t-shirts, etc. to raise more funds.
RC: Are you going to hit the streets collecting signatures for the initiative?
John: We’re going to set up a table in front of Wal*Mart and ask people to sign a petition to protect traditional marriage. We’re going to interview them about why they thing traditional marriage is important, and then we’ll tell them that we are trying to ban divorce.
People who supported Prop 8 weren’t trying to take rights away from gays, they just wanted to protect traditional marriage. That’s why I’m confident that they will support this initiative, even though this time it will be their rights that are diminished. To not support it would be hypocritical.
We’re also going to collect signatures in front of “Faces,” the largest gay nightclub in Sacramento.
RC: Can gay and unmarried people sign the petition to make this California Law?
John: Anyone can sign the petition as long as they are a registered voter in California. Sinners signatures work just as well as saints.
That brings up and interesting point. We are a Christian nation.
Jesus said, “What God has put together, let no man separate.” Divorce is a sin.
Fun fact: Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality. Probably some sort of clerical oversight that will be rectified in the end of days…
RC: I think about half of the 10 commandments are against the law in California. Are you trying to increase that percentage?
John: Being gay is a sin, but it didn’t even make the “top 10.” I can’t covet my neighbor’s wife…that’s close, but it doesn’t hit the nail on the head.
RC: This initiative does seem like it would “Protect Marriage”, but if two people decide to not be married anymore, shouldn’t they be in charge of their own lives?
John: Sometimes other people need to sacrifice in order to protect my ideas about traditional marriage. It’s just a fact of life. It’s not about their soul-sucking sham of a marriage, it’s about what we value as a society. We live in a divorce-promiscuous society. It’s on the television, it’s in movies, the newspapers. It’s even in our kids textbooks.
I’m Catholic. In my religion, divorce is a sin — completely impermissable.
RC: Sounds like you’d like to shield kids from learning too much about divorce.
John: I don’t want the government teaching my child divorce is “cool” or “legally permisable.” That’s a conversation that should happen in the family. It’s the parents’ role to teach the kids about reality — not the state’s.
RC: well, this is a bold step. Do you think you face a strong opposition?
John: The opposition will always be there. The secular progressives, gays and MSNBC hosts — but we beat them once with Prop 8 and we’ll beat them again. If people are thinking about getting a divorce, just remember “Hell is eternal, just like your marriage was supposed to be.” Jesus still loves you if you get divorced, just not as much as before.
RC: What about people who are currently married? Will this law apply to them, or only new marriages?
John: I wish that I could force people that hate each other with the intensity of a thousand white suns back into a loveless marriage, but my attorneys tell me that getting that law passed would be unlikely in the current political climate.
I’ll try to get a “win” by banning divorce and save that for 2012 — when Sarah Palin will be president and/or the end of the world will occur.
RC: Its good to have a plan.
John: One step at a time. We can return this country back to it’s proud, traditional Judeo-Christian roots.
RC: Thank you. We are almost done, and I appreciate you typing your responses.
John: No worries.
Thank you.
John’s website is rescuemarriage.org
Calif. Initiative Round-up – Outlawing Divorce, Legalizing Pot, and Christmas Music
In California, voters are allowed to promote ballot initiatives on almost any subject, including those that can fundamentally change the state constitution. Here are some initatives that are currently in circulation as of November 18, 2009. Only a few will make it to the ballot, but it is interesting to see what changes some want to see in the law.
Here’s what your neighbors may be voting on in the next election if the promoters of these initatives gather enough signatures. Can you trust the voters with your rights? The “power of the majority” can cut both ways, which is why I believe that there are certain rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution which the “majority” cannot touch. However, given the recent California Supreme Court decision on the marriage cases, every right is apparently up for grabs, including, ironically, the right to divorce. Editor
The links are to the Secretary of State’s website where you can download the full text of the proposed initatives.
1364. (09-0011)
Reinstates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Summary Date: 06/22/09 Circulation Deadline: 11/19/09 Signatures Required: 694,354
Proponent: Charles Lowe (800) 778-2998
Repeals the current provision in California’s Constitution that states only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Provides that the initiative is not intended, and shall not be interpreted, to modify or change the curriculum in any school. Clarifies that the initiative is not intended, and shall not be interpreted, to mandate or require clergy of any church or religious institution to perform a service or duty inconsistent with his or her faith. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Over the long run, this measure would likely have little fiscal impact on state and local governments. (09-0011.) (Full Text)
1367. (09-0014)
Mandatory Drug and Alcohol Testing for Members of the Legislature. Initiative Statute.
Summary Date: 07/13/09 Circulation Deadline: 12/10/09 Signatures Required: 433,971
Proponents: Dorothy Cummings and Gary Ellis
Requires all legislators elected subsequent to passage of this initiative to be tested for the illegal use of drugs and the “habitual use of alcohol.” Prevents a legislator who tests positive from performing his or her official duties or from getting paid until that legislator completes a substance abuse program at his or her own expense. Requires a legislator to permanently forfeit his or her office upon a second positive test. Provides exception for use of medicinal marijuana under a doctor’s care. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Probably no significant change in state costs in most years. (09-0014.) (Full Text)
1374. (09-0022)
Changes California Law to Legalize, Regulate, and Tax Marijuana. Initiative Statute.
Summary Date: 09/08/09 Circulation Deadline: 02/05/10 Signatures Required: 433,971
Proponent: Joe Rogoway, Omar Figueroa, and James J. Clark (415) 946-5591
Repeals state laws that make it a crime for people 21 years old or older to use, possess, sell, cultivate, or transport marijuana or industrial hemp, except laws that make it a crime to drive while impaired or to contribute to the delinquency of a minor. Expunges state convictions based on the repealed marijuana-related laws. Requires state and local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana. Requires taxes to be spent on education, healthcare, environmental programs, public works, and state parks. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Savings in the several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major new excise, income, and sales tax revenues related to the production and sale of marijuana products. (09-0022.) (Full Text)
1379. (09-0026)
Eliminates the Law Allowing Married Couples to Divorce. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Summary Date: 10/23/09 Circulation Deadline: 03/22/10 Signatures Required: 694,354
Proponent: John Marcotte
Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California. Preserves the ability of married couples to seek an annulment. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Savings to the state of up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually for support of the court system due to the elimination of divorce proceedings. (09-0026.) (Full Text)
1383. (09-0030)
Requires Public Schools to Offer Christmas Music. Initiative Statute.
Summary Date: 10/30/09 Circulation Deadline: 03/29/10 Signatures Required: 433,971
Proponents: Merry Susan Hyatt and David Joseph Hyatt
Requires public schools to offer an opportunity for students to listen to or perform Christmas music during the holiday season. Requires schools to notify students’ parents or guardians twenty-one days before the music will be played or performed so that students can opt-out of listening to or performing the music. Provides that a civil lawsuit may be brought to enforce these requirements. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Probably minor annual costs to school districts. (09-0030.) (Full Text)
US court rules against “I Believe” car license plates (APD)
Proposed "I Believe" License Plate - South Carolina
Washington D.C./USA, 11/13/2009/APD - A US federal judge has ordered South Carolina not to issue cross-adorned ”I believe” car number plates, ruling it violates the constitutional separation of church and state. US District Court judge, Cameron Currie, ruled that the state legislature – which voted unanimously last year to approve the number plates that include a cross in front of a stained glass window – had clearly given favoured government treatment to a single faith, and ordered to halt its issue.
”Whether motivated by sincerely held Christian beliefs or an effort to purchase political capital with religious coin, the result is the same,” Judge Currie wrote in a 57 page order. “The statute is clearly unconstitutional, and defence of its implementation has embroiled the state in unnecessary (and expensive) litigation.”
“Americans United for Separation of Church and State” (AUSCS), a religious liberty group that brought the legal challenge to the bill before the court, hailed the decision. ”This is great news,” said its executive director, the Reverend Barry Lynn. ”Some officials seem to want to use religion as a political football … That’s an appalling misuse of governmental authority, and I am thrilled that the judge put a stop to it.”
Christian rights activists decried the decision, and the lieutenant-governor of South Carolina, Andre Bauer, who initiated the legislation, said the lawsuit discriminated against persons of faith.
*********************
This article is also available on the Internet at:
http://www.stanet.ch/APD/news/2370.html
UK – Health and safety snoops to enter family homes (TimesOnline)
EXCERPT from TimesOnline
Health and safety inspectors are to be given unprecedented access to family homes to ensure that parents are protecting their children from household accidents.
New guidance drawn up at the request of the Department of Health urges councils and other public sector bodies to “collect data” on properties where children are thought to be at “greatest risk of unintentional injury”.
Council staff will then be tasked with overseeing the installation of safety devices in homes, including smoke alarms, stair gates, hot water temperature restrictors, oven guards and window and door locks.
Washington DC – New Turn in Debate Over Law on Marriage (The New York Times)
EXCERPT from New York Times: New Turn in Debate Over Law on Marriage By IAN URBINA Published: November 12, 2009
WASHINGTON — The fight over a proposed same-sex marriage law here heated up this week as the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said that if the law passed, the church would cut its social service programs that help residents with adoption, homelessness and health care.
…
“Religious organizations and individuals are at risk of legal action for refusing to promote and support same-sex marriages in a host of settings where it would compromise their religious beliefs,” Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said in a statement. “This includes employee benefits, adoption services and even the use of a church hall for non-wedding events for same-sex married couples.”
…
“The Catholic Church hierarchy is at a crossroads,” said the Rev. Dennis W. Wiley, the co-chairman of Clergy United for Marriage Equality and the pastor of Covenant Baptist Church. “They must decide whether they are in the charity business for charity’s sake, or if imposing their will on the D.C. City Council and the citizens of the district is their primary interest.”
Read the full article at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/us/13marriage.html
House Healthcare Vote – A Huge Triumph for the Catholic Church (America Magazine)
EXCERPTS from America Magazine Blog – 11/8/09
The House Vote: A Huge Triumph for the Church
Author: Michael Sean Winters
It is difficult to over-estimate the degree to which last night’s vote in the House, passing a comprehensive health care reform bill, was a huge victory for the Catholic Church. Yes, for the USCCB, but also for a view of the world that the Church, at times alone, has sustained in the face of the radical individualism of American culture. The belief that heath care is a right, not a privilege, took a giant step towards legislative enactment last night.
…
The happy result last night was a long time coming. The staff at the USCCB and the Catholic Health Association have been teaching, and learning, about health care reform for decades. They have been getting to know members of Congress for decades. They have been heavily involved in negotiations over the past weeks and months, but work on the current bill would not have come to fruition unless over the decades past, these staffs had not learned about the needs of members of Congress, the forks in the legislative road, which allies could be counted on, and all the accumulated knowledge that comes from years of engagement, oftentimes frustrating, with the political process. I was not sure two days ago that they could pull off passing a pro-life health care bill but they did. The entire Catholic Church owes them a debt of gratitude.
Read the full article at http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=42470797-3048-741E-9592106822199832
A Church Scorned: Church, State, Marriage, and the Quest for Power
“And so, by the power vested in me by the State of ___ and Almighty God, I now pronounce you husband and wife. What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”
This pronouncement is the point in a religious wedding ceremony where the power of the state and the power of the Almighty God come together to fuse a couple in holy matrimony. To date, the vast majority of debates on same-sex marriage have focused on whether it is morally or spiritually correct. However, the foundational issue is whether the church should seek the right to control marriages performed outside of its walls. At its core, this is a battle that challenges the tenuous yet mutually protective balance between church and state, and the results matter regardless of what you believe about same-sex marriage.
Weddings are typically joyful experiences and even the most avowed atheists have not tried to prevent ministers from claiming the power of the State in performing the ceremony. However, even though the church and the state may happily hold hands at the wedding, they cannot dance together gracefully into a long-lasting marriage unless each has great respect for the non-overlapping rights and obligations of the other.
Unlike the newlyweds, the state is not obligated to “forsake all others,” when it comes to religious viewpoints. The state has little discretion when it comes to solemnizing marriages, and absent an amendment to the constitution itself, is limited only by statutes having to do with the consent of the parties, age of the parties, and whether there are more than two parties involved. On the other hand, churches have very broad discretion to solemnize marriages and can refuse to do so for virtually any reason. This broad discretion has not been challenged.
However, when the state begins to recognize marriages that churches find inappropriate, many churches are offended – churches feel almost as if the state has decided to “cheat” on the church. And hell hath no fury like a church scorned.
Regardless of the fact that same-sex couples have sought ceremonies in churches that will perform them or have sought civil ceremonies, conservative churches have begun to step in and intervene and have relied upon the power of the majority to force changes in otherwise permissive state constitutions. This is not only a battle between secularism and religion. It is a battle between competing religious ideologies, and ultimately a battle for spiritual control.
Alonzo T. Jones, writing in his 1891 classic, The Two Republics: or, Rome and the United States of America, makes an astonishing observation about the way that the Medieval church accumulated political power over the state.
“Another most prolific source of general corruption was the church’s assumption of authority to regulate, and that by law, the whole question of the marriage relation, both in the Church and in the state. ”The first aggression . . . which the Church made on the state, was assuming the cognizance over all questions and causes relating to marriage. ” — Milmaii.21 (Click here to read the entire passage.)
While we are not at a point in history where the church is asserting direct political control, we can see that the church may be headed down this pathway yet again. After describing the circumstances and the Church’s methods, Jones continues:
“[I]n accordance with the rest of the theocratical legislation of Constantine and the bishops, the precepts of the Scripture in relation to marriage and divorce were adopted with heavy penalties, as the laws of the empire. As the church had assumed ‘cognizance over all questions relating to marriage,’ it followed that marriage not celebrated by the church was held to be but little better than an illicit connection.”
The church continued to assert control over legal marriage for centuries thereafter. In March of 1880, the Canadian Parliament considered a bill that would allow a man to marry his deceased wife’s sister. The debate quickly turned to an argument over whether the church or the state had the power to regulate marriage. There were Protestant and Jewish participants in the debate, the entirety of which can be read above, however the Catholic representative quickly asserted that the Church had “supreme power over marriage” and that the state must stand down.
“Pius IX, in his letter to the King of Sardinia, dated 19th September, 1852, says : ” It is a dogma of faith that marriage was raised by Our Lord Jesus Christ to the dignity of a sacrament.” Would you know the doctrine? The Council of Trent speaks: ‘Whosoever says that marriage is not really and truly one of the seven sacraments of the Evangelical Law, let him be anathema.’ If marriage is a sacrament, and such is our unalterable belief, the Church only, by divine right, has supreme power over Christian marriage. In fact the Church alone is the dispenser of the sacraments. St. Paul teaches us this in his first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 4, in which he says : ‘Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Jesus Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.’ The Pope Gelasius, writing to the Emperor Austasins told him plainly: ‘Although your dignity raises you above the human race, you are nevertheless subject to the Bishops in matters relating to the faith, and to the delivering of the sacraments.’
And what is a sacrament, if it be not a means subordinate in its nature to the object of religious society? The Church has, therefore, supreme power over marriage. . . . We now arrive at the true question as it presents itself to us. We shall easily solve it. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier brings in a Bill which may meet with our approval, but he has just delivered a speech which I cannot accept as an expression of the ideas and principles of Catholics upon this question of marriage. What does the hon. member maintain? That this Parliament has the undoubted right to establish absolute impediments to marriage, and the not less undoubted power of dispensing with them. I protest against such a declaration, and I emphatically deny that this Parliament has a right to legislate as to the validity of marriage. Marriage is a sacrament; the state has nothing to say as to the administration of the sacrament, and, by consequence, as to the validity of marriage. That is an ecclesiastical contract over which religious society alone has a power, which cannot be vested in the state.” (Emphasis added. Click here to read the debate.)
In the eyes of the Catholic church at the time, only sacramental marriage was legitimate. Again, the current debate relates to this history. Does the church or the state have the power to define marriage? If the church has the power, which church?
In California, church and state collided on marriage issues in 1948 when the Catholic Church sued claiming that the state had violated its religious liberty through a long-standing civil prohibition on interracial marriages. The Court issued its ruling in Perez v. Sharp,198 P.2d 17, 32 Cal. 2d 711 (1948) (also known as Perez v. Lippold). Those opposed to interracial marriage raised three major arguments: First, they argued that the law was really not discriminatory. Secondly, they discussed the effect on the children. Third they asserted that, in this case, the state had the power over the church’s sacrament because of an interest in promoting the “health safety, and general welfare.” Ironically, these three arguments once used against the church’s request provide the backbone of the current arguments against same-sex marriage.
The Court’s majority found that the church was right and that the “anti-miscegenation” law was unconstitutional. Justice Shenk, dissenting in favor of the prohibition, wrote that the law was not discriminatory because, “Each [party seeking to marry a member of a different race] has the right and the privilege of marrying within his or her own group.”
In language that appears extremely offensive, Shenk turned his attention to the children resulting from interracial unions, “It is contended that interracial marriage has adverse effects not only upon the parties thereto but upon their progeny . . . and that the progeny of a marriage between a Negro and a Caucasian suffer not only the stigma of such inferiority but the fear of rejection by members of both races.”
Justice Shenk then stated that prohibiting interracial marriage was consistent with the “peace and safety” provisions of the Constitution. Shenk’s arguments should be familiar if you are following the current debate, and in fact several of the same cases are regularly cited including Cantwell v. Connecticut, and Reynolds v. United States.
“Other considerations are presented in connection with petitioners’ contentions that their religious liberty is being infringed. The First Amendment to the United states Constitution declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. The due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment embraces this fundamental concept of liberty as expressed in the First Amendment and renders the states likewise incompetent to transgress it. However, this religious liberty ‘embraces two concepts, freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be.’ Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S.Ct. 900, 903, 84 L.Ed. 1213, 128 A.L.R. 1352; Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 110, 63 S.Ct. 870, 87 L.Ed. 1292, 146 A.L.R. 81; Gospel Army v. City of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.2d 232, 163 P.2d 704. It has long been held that conduct, consisting of practices and acts, remains subject to regulation for the health, safety and general welfare. For example, a legislative determination that monogamy is the ‘law of social life’ has been held to prevail over the practice of polygamy and bigamy as a duty required, encouraged or suffered by religion. Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L.Ed. 244; Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637; Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14, 67 S.Ct. 13, 91 L.Ed. 12.
“The reasoning behind this construction of the Constitution is obvious. The determination of proper standards of behaviour must be left to the Congress or to the state legislatures in order that the well being of society as a whole may be safeguarded or promoted. The protection of the individual’s exercise of religious worship afforded by our state Constitution, Article I, section 4, corresponds with that furnished by the federal guaranty as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Our Constitution expressly provides that the free exercise of religion guaranteed ‘shall not be so construed as to * * * justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state.’”
Justice Shenk then provides a sampling of “supportive” scientific and legal documents, which are nearly frightening, and draws the following conclusion:
“ The foregoing excerpts from scientific articles and legal authorities make it clear that there is not only some but a great deal of evidence to support the legislative determination (last made by our Legislature in 1933) that intermarriage between Negroes and white persons is incompatible with the general welfare and therefore a proper subject for regulation under the police power. There may be some who maintain that there does not exist adequate data on a sufficiently large scale to enable a decision to be made as to the effects of the original admixture of white and Negro blood. However, legislators are not required to wait upon the completion of scientific research to determine whether the underlying facts carry sufficient weight to more fully sustain the regulation.”
Incidentally, most churches stayed out of the interracial marriage debate, leaving the Catholic Church to carry the civil rights issue forward.
Although it has not happened as of yet in California, a lawsuit brought by a church that wishes to perform same-sex marriages that are recognized by the state could easily follow the reasoning found in Perez. This could create a bitter inter-religious fight in the courts between fundamentalist churches and permissive churches, and the courts would be asked to make a ruling on a religious issue. My guess is that fundamentalists considered this troubling prospect and proposed the Constitutional Amendment to take the matter out of the court system altogether. However, in doing so, marriage was denied a full legal treatment, and the reliance on public sentiment to permanently curtail judicial examination of potential rights creates a very troubling precedent which will likely carry over into other contexts. To understand the gravity of this approach, consider that had a ballot initiative been campaigned to amend the California constitution in opposition to the California Supreme Court’s finding in favor of allowing interracial marriage, interracial marriage would likely be unconstitutional in California today.*
While there are certainly reasons why churches should to have the right to solemnize only traditional marriage of a man and a woman within their walls, there is no legal foundation for churches to prevent marriage in other arenas. This could only be obtained via a structural change to the constitution itself.
Churches that are willing to argue that religious liberty does not extend to marriage are also asserting their power to limit the “rights” of other churches to perform same-sex marriages, and could soon see their own liberties limited in other areas through operation of their own logic if the political winds shift.
Legally, not religiously, the institution of marriage is at a crossroads, and there are several ways that the matter could be resolved. First, all marriages could be reduced to nothing more than a civil contract with a separate non-legally recognized spiritual component. Secondly, the state could recognize the legal status of marriages between two consenting adults regardless of gender, and preserve the civil / religious nature of marriage and continue to preserve the broad discretion to marry or not presently enjoyed by churches.
Considering the most recent votes on marriage, I would like to offer a third possibility. Instead of secularism, could it be that religion will prevail over the state, casting a “theocratic” shadow over the nation? In the late 1800s, the church’s power to control marriage was used as the precedent to promote laws governing the other institution of creation, the Sabbath.* Could that happen again? Maybe this is slippery slope reasoning, but considering that religious fundamentalists have been arguing that the secular state will prevail over the church if left unchecked, it is not an unfair argument. Perhaps instead of a single slippery slope, we are at the peak of the roof, facing slopes in both directions.
In a future article I plan to explore the history of marriage further and its legal relationship to religious legislation, but for now, at the least we should recognize the need to discern the issues involved in this debate fully before placing liberty of conscience at risk.
###
*The historical link between regulation of marriage and the legal basis for proposed sabbath legislation will be explored in more detail in a future article. For more on the issue of majoritarian control of fundamental rights, please read the prior essay, Raw Majority Power: Why Checks and Balances Matter
Scholarship contest asks high school students to revisit JFK speech on separation of church and state
The Religious Liberty Council of the Baptist Joint Committee on its website announced the 5th annual Religious Liberty Essay Scholarship Contest, which is open to all high school students in the graduating classes of 2010 and 2011. According to the BJC, “this year’s contest will commemorate the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s landmark speech about the relationship between his religion and his politics and the separation of church and state.”
The scholarship contest offers a grand prize of $1,000 and airfare and lodging for two to Washington, D.C. Second prize is $500, and third prize is $100.
…
Students enter the scholarship contest by writing an essay addressing the following topic:
The year 2010 marks the 50th anniversary of presidential nominee John F. Kennedy’s speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association about the relationship between his religion and his politics. On September 12, 1960, the Roman Catholic politician spoke to the group of Protestant ministers about his religion and the way it would – and would not – affect his decisions as president. In an essay, discuss whether you think Kennedy was correct in advocating an absolute separation of church and state. Also, discuss the implications of his speech and how the principles he laid out are – or are not – followed by politicians and other leaders 50 years later.
For more information on the topic, contest rules, and a video of the speech visit: www.BJConline.org/contest