John H Armstrong

Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom

America has a long history of protecting the legal rights and religious freedom of all people. This protection is now being stretched by two radically different views in the debate over same-sex marriage. Advocates of same-sex marriage often use the same legal opinions to promote their views that their opponents use in opposing them. Let me explain.

Some opponents of same-sex marriage clearly use the teaching of Scripture to oppose the legalization of such unions. Believing that same-sex marriage is immoral (as a confessing Christian I believe this way) these advocates then go on to argue that the state’s actions should always reflect the opinion of the majority. If the courts rule otherwise then they see the court decision as a denial of religious freedom. But a law that creates moral controversy, and even opposition to Christian doctrine, does not mean that there is a clear denial of free exercise as stated in the First Amendment.

On the opposite side proponents of same-sex marriage claim that the separation of church and state should keep the government out of the marriage debate altogether. Their argument is rather simple—marriage between one man and one woman is based on religious doctrine thus such marriage law is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. But this argument is specious since we have clearly defined laws about theft and murder. Both of these laws conform to religious teaching and are the opinion of the majority but this does not make them a violation of church and state.

K. Hollyn Hollman, the general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee, writes:

Instead of making such broad and misleading claims, advocates for religious liberty on all sides of the marriage debate would be better served by trying to specify the interests at issue, the conflicts between competing rights, and possible ways of minimizing harm. Where and how are gay rights and religious liberty rights likely to clash?

Hollman sees two areas where this debate touches directly on religious freedom.

First, there are concerns about the autonomy and freedom of religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage. Hollman sees this concern as misguided. I wish I could agree but I am not fully persuaded she is right. Will zealous secular judges and officials seek to hinder freedom of speech by Christians who oppose same-sex marriage or who refuse to perform such marriages if they become legal? In Canada this has already happened. The United States has a stronger legal precedent against it, thus Hollman’s belief that it will not happen here. But I still wonder. The rhetoric of some has led to my nervousness in several instances.

Second, the more valid concern is that there will be a denial of liberty to schools and hospitals with religious convictions against same-sex marriage. Should religious exemptions based on sexual orientation be a part of the same-sex debate? I think so. Some same-sex advocates agree but most show no concern at all. What we need is a sound interpretation of both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. Without these we will cease to be vigilant in keeping church and state properly separate.

Our goal, in terms of the legal debate, ought to be to preserve religious freedom against all encroachment, whether from the advocates or the opponents of same-sex marriage.

I oppose same-sex marriage. My opposition is not primarily rooted in religious convictions, though I plainly oppose it on religious grounds inside the church. In the culture I believe that we need to make a case for why this “experiment” in marriage is harmful to families and children. There is a strong case for this point of view but we rarely hear it clearly stated by the opponents of same-sex marriage. We don't expect it from the other side since they do not want us to discuss this issue in a way that might question the outcomes of their campaign to change the law.

I recognize that if my state adopts same-sex marriage it will be become the law. It would be a law I do not agree with thus I would still want the freedom to oppose it. But it would be the law. I will never perform same-sex marriages regardless of the legal consequences. But I will never use the Free Exercise Clause to oppose such a law unless I clearly believe the law violates my freedom to live out my faith under the rule of law.

I do not think the average person who debates this issue understands how unique and important the Free Exercise Clause is to our way of life. Those who are not vigilant in protecting this legal stance could lose it. It is a treasure that Americans inherited from the bloody sacrifice of those who came before us. No previous culture dared to create such a nation. We dare not give it up to anyone, left or right, liberal or conservative, Christian or non-Christian.

Alabama's Christian Govenor Gets It Right

Alabama's Governor Bob Riley has asked the churches of his state, in a May 20 address, to shoulder the burden of caring for the newly released inmates of the state. He says the state of Alabama lacks the funds and flexibility to do the job. Leaders from churches and other non-profit groups were asked to assist in housing, employment assistance, clothing, health care and cash. He made an interesting appeal when he said churches rose to the occasion when Hurricane Katrina hit the region and if they had the will they could rise to this occasion as well. Speaking to a group of some 500 leaders Riley said, "If we can motivate the faith-based communities in the state the way we do during an emergency then we can make a difference." The state releases 11,000 prisoners each year.

This is an issue I know something about first-hand. I was involved, back in the late 1980s, in helping begin a ministry in the Wheaton area for ex-offenders. What shocked me, at least initially, was the reaction of so many Christians, and the area media, to our trying to do this in the "evangelically influenced" city of Wheaton. Fear reigned supreme in many cases and property values were more important than mission for so many Christians. We calmly answered every question but the issue would not go away for many years.

In Alabama the state suggested at least eighty ways private charity can help. Even the most vocal critics of church and state cooperation suggest the Alabama model is sound. What I wonder is simple: "Will enough Christians and leaders care or will they be too concerned for their lifestyle and comforts to get involved?" The state is almost pleading with us, in such a case, to do what we can do better than any government. I wonder if we have the will to respond. My fear is that some will but the number will be too low and Christians will find it more convenient to blame the state and then believe the real answer is more prisons. It is precisely here that true revivals have changed this pattern throughout history. Let us pray it happens in Alabama.

Cardinal George's Response to Father Pflegler

I have made the point numerous times on this site, and in my ACT 3 Weekly E-zine columns, that ministers ought to avoid partisan political positions and speech. I also argued that Governor Huckabee would have been wise to give up his ordination when he ran for office, as I would say for any other minister. The radically different roles of minister and political servant of the state are too easily confused. We ought to work very hard to correct this confusion.

We got a great reminder of how this can be done when Father Michael Pflegler spoke out on May 25 about Hillary Clinton and turned a sermon at Trinity United Church of Christ into an endorsement of Barack Obama. The swift response of Francis Cardinal George of Chicago was beautiful and correct. He reminded Father Pflegler that his role was to serve his parish as a priest, not to engage in partisan politics. Pflegler has done this for many years and thus his recent tirade does not appear to be in keeping with his long-term ministry in Chicago.

Protestants could learn a great deal from this response. I wish we would at least try to call our own to task in some meaningful way but since most of our ministers submit to no authority but their own it is almost impossible that we will clean this up in the future. Self-policing can work but not in the present context. Thank God for Cardinal George and his swift actions. He encouraged me a great deal when I saw his deft and wise pastoral skills used in the public arena last week.

The Cross in Daley Plaza Chicago

In preparation for Easter this past weekend, an an Easter sunrise service in downtown Chicago, a 19-foot cross was erected on Daley Plaza in Chicago. What struck me about this event was not the ceremony, or even especially the use of a cross. What struck me about this event was that Rob Sherman, a nationally known atheist from Buffalo Grove, Illinois, applauded the way the event was done. I thought: "What gives? Had Rob become a Christian?" The real answer is one many conservative Christians need to think about I believe.

This event was sponsored by The Thomas More Society (Catholic). The More Society obtained a city permit for the cross and their event. Sherman therefore applauded the city of Chicago and The Thomas More Society for properly working together to gain legal approval for "free exercise of private religious speech in the public square." Christians from several different backgrounds worked on this project. Sherman noted that he had no problem with an expression of faith in public, only with government-sponsored displays.

Though I do not always agree with Rob Sherman I think we ought to consider what is being said and done here. What Sherman opposes is his government funding and backing the display of any particular religious expression using tax-payer funds. In this case public property was used, by permit, for the free exercise of faith.

The problems we face in this area are significant but many of them could be more easily solved with solutions like this one. I do not think the framers of the Constitution could have envisioned a time when Christianity would not be virtually synonymous with the culture but such is the time we now live in. With every passing year other religions, and no religion, have a major place in public life in America. The government does not need to support any of them. The great blessing of America is that we have no established Church or religion.

My critics will say "Christianity," at least broadly conceived, "has the rightful place at the center of our society and that government should acknowledge that in some form." (Many symbols of faith do clearly exist on public buildings, flags, city logos, etc. and these need not be removed since they are part of our history, not part of promoting or favoring a religion in the present! This is where the arguments of atheists, to my mind, are stretched too far.) My response is that Christianity did have such a place historically but it doesn't have it now, regardless of what you and I think about why this came about. I seriously wonder how much these various fights over displaying Christian symbols on public property at Christmas, to use the most common example, really matter to the mission of Christ and the spread of the gospel in our society?

Here is a novel idea. If you want to have public religious services on government property then get a permit and have them. It makes sense if you think about it for long. 

A Very Bad Idea in Illinois

A few days ago a devastating fire destoyed a historic Chicago landmark, the southside meeting place of the Pilgrim Baptist Church. It is still being determined if the walls of the old church are structurally sound enough to allow them to remain when the church is rebuilt. This historic church has been the religious home of a number of famous people. Before the building became a church, about seventy-five years ago, it was a historic Chicago synagogue.  This particular tragedy has struck many Chicagoans deeply and the outpouring of public response has been nothing short of amazing as financiers and friends have pledged large sums of money toward the rebuilding project. 

Following the devastating fire Governor Rod Blagojevich promised one million dollars of state funds to the rebuilding of the church. (He also promised a personal gift of $1,000.) Not only is the governor's pledge of Illinois funds surprising, since he is a Democrat, but it appears to me to plainly be unconstitutional. The Illinois Constitution (Article 10, Section 3) states: "Neither the General Assembly nor any county, city, town, township, school district, or other public corporation, shall ever make any appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian purpose, or to help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church or sectarian denomination whatever."

Eric Zorn, in the Chicago Tribune (January 12, 2005), appropriately asked: "Where's the wiggle room into which to slip a million-dollar check?"

The governor's spokeswoman, in defending state support for Pilgrim Baptist, said the gift was actually meant to rebuild the school which is housed on the church site. She noted that any benefit this gift would have for the church is "incidental." Really?

The governor's legal counsel has further noted that previous state court rulings have made the Illinois Constitution's legal statements against such gifts meaningless prohibitions. Sadly, the political element in all of this is all too obvious. Blagojevich is running for re-election this year and few doubt that his desire for black votes in the city is somehow connected to his promise of state charity.

The governor's adminstration defended his action by citing numerous gifts from the state to assorted church projects in the past. This defense seems pretty hollow since these projects have included programs like soup-kitchens, job-placement services and drug counseling.

Here is the interesting and disturbing part of the story, at least to me. Neither Republicans nor Democrats, Christians or Jews, first raised the spectre of what was wrong with this improper mingling of church and state. The initial opposition to Blagojevich's promise came from militant atheist Rod Sherman, who routinely questions such things in Illinois.

Blagojevich's promise of funds to Pilgrim Baptist Church last week will almost certainly face a court challenge, which will of course be funded by the taxpayer's money. It is ironic to me that both liberals and conservatives often miss the proper legal separation of church and state when the situation suits them politically. This issue is very important. It seems more than odd to be on the side of the atheist Rod Sherman in this particular issue. Remember, if your church takes government money you will give up a vital and hard won liberty at a great price that may eventually be larger than what you bargained for when you took the political cash.