The Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage has left many concerned.
The Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage has left many concerned about protecting freedom for everyone who believes that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Among them are law professors Richard W. Garnett, John D. Inazu and Michael W. McConnell.
In a characteristically thoughtful essay at Christianity Today, they argue that post-Obergefell, all Americans—regardless of their views about marriage—should see to it that we protect pluralism and tolerance on this issue.
Even those who support same-sex marriage should want to protect the rights of Orthodox Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Latter Day Saints and people of other faiths who believe that marriage is a union of husband and wife.
But what about the rights of the religiously unaffiliated who nevertheless dissent from the new liberal orthodoxy on marriage?
And what about conscientious secular organizations, whether run by believers or not?
In discussing and endorsing the recently introduced First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), professors Garnett, Inazu and McConnell suggest that “the best approach is to tailor FADA to the core area of concern: religious nonprofits.”
We, however, favor and recommend a broader approach. Here are four reasons why.
1. Principles, Not Politics, First
We should always start with the principle at stake. The authors suggest limiting FADA to religious nonprofits because they think doing so “would … mak[e] it more likely that this important legislation can move forward.”
This, of course, is a political judgment. In this case, we believe it best to begin by defending the principle at stake and leaving the politics to the politicians in the first instance.