From: Washington Examiner by Timothy Carney
Today's talk of tolerance and acceptance of gay marriage will soon give way to intolerance and rejection of those who hold a traditional view of marriage.
The next offensive in this culture war will involve wielding government to force individuals to accept the new definition of marriage, falsely invoking analogies to civil rights.
As a prototype, consider the assault on the liberty of Elaine Huguenin, the wedding photographer in New Mexico. In 2006, a couple asked her to photograph their wedding. When she learned the couple were lesbians, she declined, explaining that pursuant to her faith, she only photographed man-woman weddings.
The couple got a different photographer, but they sued Huguenin. In New Mexico, there is no gay marriage. In a recent poll, most New Mexicans said they oppose gay marriage. But the state outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The New Mexico Human Rights Commission found Huguenin had broken the law, and ordered her to pay $7,000. Huguenin, with the aide of the pro-bono civil liberties law firm Alliance Defense Fund, has sued and the case is now before state Supreme Court.
Try to live your own life according to traditional values, and the state will come after you, and compel you live according to its values.
Florist Barronelle Stutzman owns Arlene's Flowers in Richland, Wash. A gay man, who was a long-time customer of Arlene's, asked Stutzman to arrange flowers for his wedding. She declined, citing her belief that marriage is a union between a man and woman. Now Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson is coming after Stutzman, saying, in effect, she must participate in this gay wedding.
How does Ferguson justify using the power of the state to impose his morality? "If Ms. Stutzman sells flowers to heterosexual couples," the Seattle Post-Intelligencer quotes Ferguson saying, "she must sell them to same-sex couples."
But obviously Stutzman did sell flowers to same-sex couples, happily - that's why this particular client was a long-time customer. What she refuses to do is participate in a ceremony that the state calls marriage, but which she doesn't consider to be marriage.
This is why the civil rights analogy doesn't work. Huguenin's case and Stutzman's case aren't about small businesswomen refusing to serve gay people. They are about businesswomen refusing to endorse the novel definition of marriage.
Now that a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has asserted that the only reason to object to gay marriage is to "demean" gay people, expect this offensive in the culture war to escalate.
President Obama promised that he won't try to force churches to administer gay weddings. That's very kind of him. But Obama's contraception mandate has shown us how narrowly he views religious liberty.
Maybe Obama or his successor won't use an executive order to rewrite the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, but government will go after churches all the same. The Cardinal O'Boyle Hall that your parish occasionally rents to outside groups? Better allow gay wedding receptions there or face the wrath of the state.
You're allowed to be religious, of course, but only on the Sabbath. If you dare step into the world of commerce or public service, the government will impose its morality on you.
You see it in Obama's rhetoric: he talks of "freedom of worship" rather than freedom of religion. It's a push to bring to heel all rivals of government. Liberal writer Kevin Drum made it pretty explicit during the contraception mandate debate:
"I'm tired of religious groups operating secular enterprises (hospitals, schools)," he wrote, "hiring people of multiple faiths, serving the general public, taking taxpayer dollars -- and then claiming that deeply held religious beliefs should exempt them from public policy."
The thrust: religious groups should only do religion--they shouldn't feed the poor, clothe the naked, educate the young.
And individuals who adhere to religions? Leave your faith at the church door. The Obama administration has argued in the contraception mandate cases that we lose our freedom of conscience the second we enter into commerce with other people.
The Left has long been the aggressor in the culture war. The crushing power of government has long been their weapon.
Many politically involved writers and advocates concerned with liberty and equality fought to open marriage to gay couples. Now that they've won, here's hoping that those who care about liberty will defend the liberty of cultural conservatives to live their lives according to their faith.
Monday, July 01, 2013
Critics say Supreme Court's Prop 8 ruling takes power from voters
From: Washington Times
Conservative activists traditionally have used the ballot measure to greater effect than liberals, but left-wing political blogger Kevin Drum of Mother Jones agreed that the decision “has neither the flavor of justice nor of democratic governance, regardless of whether I like the outcome.”
“In cases like these, of course the governor and legislature are going to decline to defend the law in court,” Mr. Drum said in a post last week. The high court is “basically gutting the people’s right to pass initiatives that elected officials don’t like and then to defend them all the way to the highest court in the land.”
About half the states allow citizen ballot initiatives and popular referendums, and all states have mechanisms for their legislatures to refer issues to the ballot. The initiative typically is used “when elected representatives don’t do what the people want,” Mr. Matsusaka said.
Under the Supreme Court’s ruling, however, any ballot measure passed by state voters can be rendered moot by a lawsuit combined with an unsympathetic state attorney general.
In Colorado, for example, conservatives immediately connected the dots to the state’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights, a 1992 initiative that requires voters to approve tax increases. If Democrats in the blue-trending state are able to replace term-limited Attorney General John Suthers, a Republican, with one from their own party next year, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights could be eliminated.
“Did the Supreme Court’s Gay Marriage Ruling Just Destroy Colorado’s TABOR Law?” said a headline Wednesday on the Colorado MediaTrackers website.
Conservative Denver commentator Joshua Sharf said the 20-year-old constitutional amendment “might be left without defense, and without any party with standing to conduct a defense.” It could be “killed by default,” he said.
In his dissent to the Prop 8 ruling, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy broached the same issue, writing that the majority opinion “has implications for the 26 states that use an initiative or popular referendum system.”
“The court’s reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials — the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the court now leaves unremedied,” Mr. Kennedy said.
In an unusual breakdown on the normally ideologically divided court, the centrist Justice Kennedy was joined in his dissent by conservative Justices Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas and liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Some constitutional scholars defended Chief Justice Roberts‘ ruling, saying it closely tracked with precedent and that any other decision could have led to enormous practical problems.
“Allowing private individuals to invoke federal court jurisdiction when they disagree with a government’s decision not to defend a law would have vitiated the long-settled [constitutional] requirement that federal court litigants have a direct and particularized interest in the case they pursue,” Columbia University law professor Suzanne Goldberg wrote in a lengthy posting on the popular SCOTUSblog.com website.
“And this, in turn, would have created enormous political problems. Proposition 8’s sponsors — while claiming to be acting in the California government’s stead — were making arguments condemning gay parents that directly contradicted California law and policy,” she wrote.
Coincidentally, the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which the high court struck down Wednesday, was nearly left without a defense after the Obama administration refused to respond to a lawsuit filed against it. Instead, the Republican-dominated House of Representatives provided the funds to pay non-government attorneys to defend the measure.
Such examples of executive-branch cherry-picking are rare, but analysts say they could become more common as a result of Wednesday’s decision.
“Most government officials see it as their obligation to enforce the laws when they take their oath, so it’s unusual,” said Mr. Matsusaka, “but now that we know you can do it, I think we’re going to see more of it.”
Conservative activists traditionally have used the ballot measure to greater effect than liberals, but left-wing political blogger Kevin Drum of Mother Jones agreed that the decision “has neither the flavor of justice nor of democratic governance, regardless of whether I like the outcome.”
“In cases like these, of course the governor and legislature are going to decline to defend the law in court,” Mr. Drum said in a post last week. The high court is “basically gutting the people’s right to pass initiatives that elected officials don’t like and then to defend them all the way to the highest court in the land.”
About half the states allow citizen ballot initiatives and popular referendums, and all states have mechanisms for their legislatures to refer issues to the ballot. The initiative typically is used “when elected representatives don’t do what the people want,” Mr. Matsusaka said.
Under the Supreme Court’s ruling, however, any ballot measure passed by state voters can be rendered moot by a lawsuit combined with an unsympathetic state attorney general.
In Colorado, for example, conservatives immediately connected the dots to the state’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights, a 1992 initiative that requires voters to approve tax increases. If Democrats in the blue-trending state are able to replace term-limited Attorney General John Suthers, a Republican, with one from their own party next year, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights could be eliminated.
“Did the Supreme Court’s Gay Marriage Ruling Just Destroy Colorado’s TABOR Law?” said a headline Wednesday on the Colorado MediaTrackers website.
Conservative Denver commentator Joshua Sharf said the 20-year-old constitutional amendment “might be left without defense, and without any party with standing to conduct a defense.” It could be “killed by default,” he said.
In his dissent to the Prop 8 ruling, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy broached the same issue, writing that the majority opinion “has implications for the 26 states that use an initiative or popular referendum system.”
“The court’s reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials — the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the court now leaves unremedied,” Mr. Kennedy said.
In an unusual breakdown on the normally ideologically divided court, the centrist Justice Kennedy was joined in his dissent by conservative Justices Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas and liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Some constitutional scholars defended Chief Justice Roberts‘ ruling, saying it closely tracked with precedent and that any other decision could have led to enormous practical problems.
“Allowing private individuals to invoke federal court jurisdiction when they disagree with a government’s decision not to defend a law would have vitiated the long-settled [constitutional] requirement that federal court litigants have a direct and particularized interest in the case they pursue,” Columbia University law professor Suzanne Goldberg wrote in a lengthy posting on the popular SCOTUSblog.com website.
“And this, in turn, would have created enormous political problems. Proposition 8’s sponsors — while claiming to be acting in the California government’s stead — were making arguments condemning gay parents that directly contradicted California law and policy,” she wrote.
Coincidentally, the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which the high court struck down Wednesday, was nearly left without a defense after the Obama administration refused to respond to a lawsuit filed against it. Instead, the Republican-dominated House of Representatives provided the funds to pay non-government attorneys to defend the measure.
Such examples of executive-branch cherry-picking are rare, but analysts say they could become more common as a result of Wednesday’s decision.
“Most government officials see it as their obligation to enforce the laws when they take their oath, so it’s unusual,” said Mr. Matsusaka, “but now that we know you can do it, I think we’re going to see more of it.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
