When we warned about loss of religious freedom they just shouted us down. In the U.S. telling people to shoot white police is protected speech; telling people that marriage is for a man and woman is not going to be protected speech or freedom of religion.
As marriage and religious liberty expert at the Heritage Foundation Ryan Anderson observed, when Justice Samuel Alito asked the Obama administration’s Solicitor General Donald Verrilli whether a religious school could lose its tax-exempt status if it affirms marriage as the union between a man and woman, Verrilli responded, “It’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is it is going to be an issue.”
Anderson related this discussion to Justice Antonin Scalia’s concern about the effects of a Supreme Court-created constitutional right to same-sex marriage on religious liberty. Verrilli responded that there have been no violations against religious liberty in states that have redefined marriage in democratic fashion. Scalia observed, “They are laws. They are not constitutional requirements. That was the whole point of my question. If you let the states do it, you can make an exception. … You can’t do that once it is a constitutional proscription.”
“Not only is there nothing in the Constitution that requires the redefinition of marriage, but a ruling saying that there was could create unimaginable religious liberty violations,” writes Anderson. “These situations are best handled democratically.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment