Religious liberty: Thin pretense to attack gay marriage

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote recently complaining about the Supreme Court decision Obergefell v Hodges (2015) that the right to marry is fundamental for same-sex couples and guaranteed by the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

What was his complaint? That public officials who have traditional Christian values (presumably not accepting same sex marriage) and who act on those beliefs are subject to charges of invidious discrimination against homosexuals.

He claims there should be exceptions in the law to exempt these traditional Christians in public office.

So-called “religious liberty” is a battle cry for many in the public debates these days. What does it mean?

Apparently, to Thomas and his allies it means that traditional religious (especially Christian) views are superior to civil law and overrule it.

This is a dangerous misreading of the First Amendment, which says that “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise of religion.” It protects people from interference with their own practice of religion; it does not give them the right to refuse to comply with civil law and public policy based on that religion.

This story was originally published October 13, 2020 at 7:28 AM with the headline "Religious liberty: Thin pretense to attack gay marriage."