Shortly before leaving for its summer break, the United States Supreme Court issued two decisions affecting the status of the future of marriage in America. In United States v. Windsor, the Court struck down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage, for federal purposes, as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Court held that the proponents of California’s Proposition 8, which recognized only marriage between a man and a woman, did not have standing to defend the law.
In the wake of these decisions, it may be easy to be confused about their effect on marriage and religious freedom. Some pastors have expressed concerns over the potential impact of the decisions on their churches. Here are some short key points regarding the impact of the decisions:
1. Same-sex “marriage” is not the law of the land. The Supreme Court decisions did not mandate same-sex “marriage” on the country. The marriage decisions did have an impact on the future status of same-sex “marriage” to be sure. But it is important not to overstate the impact of the Court’s decisions. It did not establish same-sex “marriage” as a rule for the entire country.
2. The Federal DOMA remains largely intact. The Court only struck down Section 3 of DOMA, which is commonly referred to as the definitional section. Striking this section down now allows for same-sex couples who are considered “married” in their home states to receive federal benefits previously reserved for married couples. Section 2 of DOMA remains intact and enforceable. That section allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex “marriages” performed under the laws of other states. This means that North Carolina, for example, does not have to recognize the same-sex “marriage” of a Rhode Island couple. For now, each state continues to retain authority to define marriage.
3. The same-sex “marriage” battle will continue. The Court’s decisions left open some important questions. Perhaps most importantly, the question of the constitutionality of state DOMAs was left unanswered by the Court’s decisions. That issue is currently pending in some court cases in states like Hawaii and Nevada. These battles will continue, and it is likely the Supreme Court will confront that issue in the future.
4. Same-sex “marriage” remains a real threat to religious freedom, as my colleague Kellie Fiedorek points out in a recent blog:
Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his majority opinion, said, “The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the states.” In other words, Justice Kennedy suggests in his opinion that the only reason Congress and President Clinton had for protecting marriage when they passed DOMA in 1996 was a bias towards couples in same-sex relationships. That is a chilling statement that poses an immediate threat for future lawsuits against anyone who believes marriage exists only between one man and one woman. It wrongly implies that those of us who recognize marriage to be the unique union of a husband and wife – something recognized by diverse cultures and faiths throughout history – are motivated by dislike rather than a desire to affirm the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Simply astounding. Justice Scalia said it best when he called this, ‘jaw-dropping.’”
Same-sex “marriage” poses a threat to religious freedom. If you doubt this, ask the owners of Elane photography, or Arlene’s Flowers. These are just two of the recent cases where Christians have been accused of “discrimination” simply for abiding by their religious beliefs concerning sexual behavior. More cases like this may occur in the future in the wake of the Supreme Court’s opinion striking down DOMA.
This is why it is important for churches to act now to protect themselves from the possibility of such claims. Visit our website for some important resources, such as our document Seven Things all Churches Should have in Their Bylaws, or our Sample Facilities Usage Policy that ensures churches may maintain use of their facilities in accordance with their religious beliefs.
The Supreme Court’s decisions did impact marriage and religious freedom. The battle will continue and the threat to religious freedom has intensified. That’s why Alliance Defending Freedom is here. We stand ready to protect the Church from attacks that threaten its freedom and independence to share the Gospel. Please visit our website or contact us if you need help or legal counsel on these important issues.
Religious FreedomU.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett is already facing slander for her faith
On Saturday, President Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Religious Freedom3 Secular Gatherings That Nevada Has Treated Better Than Religious Gatherings
Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak’s response to COVID-19 has revealed a clear and unconstitutional double standard.
Religious FreedomWATCH: Why a Public College Had These Volunteers Arrested
Three volunteers for the organization Young Americans for Liberty were arrested for distribution. But they weren't distributing anything illegal.