What the Supreme Court Did Not Say

As if what the Supreme Court said last week in its same-sex marriage ruling is not alarming enough for those concerned about freedom of religion, what it did not say is downright chilling.  Note well this passage from Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

Well, how gracious is Our Overlord Kennedy that he allows us backwards bigots Christians to “advocate” and “teach” against gay marriage.

But - and I pray this does not bring upon this humble subject the wrath of Our Overlord - there is something he did not say.  Kennedy said nothing about protecting the practice of freedom of religion, particularly about refusing to participate in a gay marriage.  And that when the above passage was an obvious opportunity so to do.

Oh, but you can “advocate” and complain all you want about your subjugation, bigots . . . for now.

It at least used to be in the United States that you (with narrow exceptions) had the constitutionally protected freedom to practice one’s religion.  Will it be so in the very near future?

Justice Roberts noticed Kennedy’s omission as well.

The majority graciously [Snicker – Ed.] suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.

Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.

That is a lawyerly understatement. 

More can be said and will be said as attacks on freedom of religion inevitably increase.  But mark what the Supreme Court majority did not say and prepare.

The Time to Defend Freedom of Conscience is Now.

At least much of the gay rights crowd (and probably most) is not particularly interested in the freedom of churches, schools, and individuals to disagree with their viewpoint and live accordingly.  One need only to watch and listen to the Left and gay activists to get that.  Heck, the utter disrespect for the legitimacy of traditional attitudes on marriage even permeates Justice Anthony Kennedy’s DOMA majority opinion.  If one thinks the Left will tolerate the freedom of “BIGOTS!” to live in accordance with their beliefs, one is naïve indeed.  Demonization of opponents rarely stops there unless it is made to stop there.

Like Canada, the UK and Europe, we are well on the way to being made to submit to the gay agenda or else.

So I heartily agree with Erick Erickson that we should make that as difficult as possible for the Left by codifying protections for those who disagree with gay marriage and practices.

Right now, while the left still denies that is the intention, the right should act. They should start codifying protections for religious institutions — from churches to schools. Those protections should include protections for the tax exempt status of organizations that refuse to recognize gay marriage and protections for Christian schools that do not want to treat gay marriage as an acceptable alternative to normal.

I would add we should codify protections for individuals as well, although that is a tougher sell.

And, granted, we are one or two Supreme Court appointments away from just about all our Constitutional rights being flushed down the drain regardless.  But you gotta do what you can.  And time for that may be running low.

The time to act to protect 1^st Amendment freedoms is now.

(Clarification: In case anyone desires to twist what I am saying here, I am dead set opposed to gay bashing or its equivalents.  1^st Amendment freedoms never include assaulting the rights and/or persons of others.  And I do think gays should have the same rights as others although I do not think that includes changing the traditional societal definition of marriage.)

-----

Hat tip to Stand Firm.

When Anthony Kennedy channels Robert Bork

First, I apologize if any missed me yesterday. I had a busy morning and not much energy the rest of the day. So I doubt anything I would have written would have been worth reading.

But I thought about posting yesterday anyway. For it was an interesting and very bad day for Obamacare at the Supreme Court. When Justice Anthony Kennedy started channeling Robert Bork, even the Mainstream News Media was alerted that Obamacare just might be in trouble.

Speaking of said Justice, my favorite take on yesterday is Redstate’s Sinners in the Hands of Anthony Kennedy. The wonderfully titled post goes into Kennedy’s questions and statements and the Left’s bad behavior surrounding the Supreme Court and Obamacare.

But the main point Redstate makes is that if “the constitutional integrity of our republic” depends on one man, on swing vote Anthony Kennedy, then our system of government is in a very bad way.

And that is absolutely on target . . . even if Kennedy does channel Robert Bork on a good day.

By the way, Redstate also does a good job handicapping the Obamacare ruling in light of yesterday’s session.