marriage equality » ADL Blogs
Posts Tagged ‘marriage equality’
September 3, 2015 11

Public Officials: If Your Religion Prevents You From Doing Your Job, Step Aside

Many of us make impor­tant deci­sions in our daily lives grounded in our reli­gious val­ues and beliefs. That should be respected, even per­haps, applauded. How­ever when one chooses to take an oath of office or accepts a posi­tion as a pub­lic offi­cial in a sec­u­lar con­sti­tu­tional democ­racy like ours, she has a respon­si­bil­ity to do the job she was hired to do. Rowan County Ken­tucky Clerk Kim Davis’s job requires her to issue mar­riage licenses to any­one who may legally get married.

LGBT Zip code

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court for­mally rec­og­nized the dig­nity of les­bian, gay, bisex­ual and trans­gen­der peo­ple when it extended the free­dom to marry to same-sex cou­ples nation­wide. The Court ruled that the Con­sti­tu­tion for­bids states to ban mar­riage for same-sex cou­ples. Since the deci­sion, a small minor­ity of pub­lic offi­cials, most notably Ms. Davis, have argued that they should be exempt from hav­ing to issue mar­riage licenses to same-sex cou­ples, cit­ing their sin­cerely held reli­gious beliefs. The Supreme Court dis­agrees, and yet Davis con­tin­ues to defy the Court by deny­ing same-sex cou­ples mar­riage licenses. Now, she and, at her direc­tive, her staff, are refus­ing to issue mar­riage licenses mak­ing it impos­si­ble for any­one to obtain a mar­riage license in that county.

No one should ques­tion or chal­lenge Ms. Davis’s reli­gious beliefs. The fact that some news arti­cles and com­men­ta­tors have crit­i­cized Davis’s beliefs as incon­sis­tent or hyp­o­crit­i­cal is beside the point. The bot­tom line is that she has no right, con­sti­tu­tional or oth­er­wise, to refuse to do the job the state of Ken­tucky pays her to do.

The real­ity, as ADL’s ami­cus brief argued, is that over­turn­ing mar­riage bans ensures that reli­gious con­sid­er­a­tions do not improp­erly influ­ence which mar­riages the state can rec­og­nize, but still allows reli­gious groups to decide the def­i­n­i­tion of mar­riage for them­selves. That remains true. Rab­bis, priests, min­is­ters can­not be com­pelled to par­tic­i­pate in mar­riages of which they do not approve. Reli­gions are not required to sol­em­nize any kind of mar­riage they don’t want to rec­og­nize. How­ever, that does not mean that gov­ern­ment employ­ees may aban­don their duties nor may they seek to impose their reli­gious beliefs on oth­ers by inter­fer­ing with their con­sti­tu­tional right to marry.

If Ms. Davis or oth­ers feel that they can­not ful­fill the duties they were selected to per­form, they should step aside and allow oth­ers to serve the community.

A 501©(3) non­profit orga­ni­za­tion, ADL nei­ther sup­ports nor opposes any can­di­date for polit­i­cal office.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

July 3, 2015 2

Yes, Justice Thomas, the Government Can Deprive People of Dignity

The word “dig­nity” appears 30 times in last week’s Supreme Court mar­riage equal­ity case, Oberge­fell v. Hodges. Describ­ing the same-sex cou­ples who aspired to marry, Jus­tice Anthony Kennedy, writ­ing for the 5–4 major­ity, stated:

Their hope is not to be con­demned to live in lone­li­ness, excluded from one of civilization’s old­est insti­tu­tions. They ask for equal dig­nity in the eyes of the law. The Con­sti­tu­tion grants them that right. supreme-court-civil-rights




In a bit­ter dis­sent, Jus­tice Clarence Thomas demurred, stat­ing that “the Con­sti­tu­tion con­tains no ‘dig­nity’ Clause.” He argued that the gov­ern­ment is “inca­pable of bestow­ing dig­nity,” stat­ing flatly that” human dig­nity can­not be taken away by the government.”

Aston­ish­ingly, Jus­tice Thomas then attempted to prove his dubi­ous propo­si­tion by cit­ing two extreme and rep­re­hen­si­ble gov­ern­ment actions that were actu­ally designed to deprive vic­tims of “equal dig­nity under the law” – slav­ery and the incar­cer­a­tion of Amer­i­cans of Japan­ese descent dur­ing World War II:

Slaves did not lose their dig­nity … because the gov­ern­ment allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in intern­ment camps did not lose their dig­nity because the gov­ern­ment con­fined them.

But the gov­ern­ment did not “allow” blacks to be enslaved – the laws of the time facil­i­tated and empow­ered slave own­ers and enforced slavery.

And the Japan­ese Amer­i­can Cit­i­zens League was rightly “appalled” by Jus­tice Thomas’ blind­ness to the impact of the government’s shame­ful and unwar­ranted forcible relo­ca­tion and incar­cer­a­tion of 120,000 Amer­i­cans of Japan­ese descent, the vast major­ity of whom were citizens.

In 1942, just 10 weeks after the sur­prise attack on Pearl Har­bor, Pres­i­dent Franklin D. Roo­sevelt issued his Exe­cu­tion Order 9066, pro­vid­ing the legal author­ity for this depri­va­tion of lib­erty and dig­nity. Roosevelt’s exec­u­tive action was issued against the back­drop of wide­spread, base­less fears that Amer­i­cans of Japan­ese ances­try might pose a threat to the U.S – anx­i­ety that was cer­tainly fed by a long his­tory of prej­u­dice and xeno­pho­bia direct against Japan­ese Americans.

Those incar­cer­ated in the camps were uprooted from their com­mu­ni­ties, sep­a­rated from their fam­i­lies, their homes, and their pos­ses­sions, and lost their per­sonal lib­er­ties and free­doms until the end of the war.

Trag­i­cally, the president’s exec­u­tive order was bol­stered by addi­tional con­gres­sional enact­ments. And when the con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity of these actions was chal­lenged in two main cases before the U.S. Supreme Court – Hirabayashi v. U.S. andKore­matsu v. United States – the Court held that these clearly dis­crim­i­na­tory actions by the gov­ern­ment were, in fact, jus­ti­fied and constitutional.

Now, 73 years later, the Anti-Defamation League uses the cruel and unwar­ranted wartime treat­ment of Amer­i­cans of Japan­ese descent as a teach­able moment for our nation on the dan­gers of stereo­typ­ing, prej­u­dice, and racial pro­fil­ing. While we can honor and admire indi­vid­u­als that can retain their per­sonal dig­nity under the most adverse con­di­tions, there should be no doubt, Jus­tice Thomas, that the gov­ern­ment can deprive peo­ple of their “equal dignity.”

For­tu­nately, a Supreme Court major­ity has now held that the Con­sti­tu­tion man­dates that same-sex cou­ples are enti­tled to equal treat­ment – and mar­riage equality.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 12, 2015 2

ADL Urges Supreme Court to Protect Religious Freedom by Supporting Marriage Equality

ADL brought together a broad coali­tion of reli­gious, cul­tural and civil rights orga­ni­za­tions, rep­re­sent­ing diverse faiths, tra­di­tions and cul­tures, to urge the U.S. Supreme Court to reject efforts to impose one par­tic­u­lar reli­gious under­stand­ing of mar­riage into law.

Photo credit Victoria Pickering

Photo credit Vic­to­ria Pickering

ADL filed a friend– of-the-court brief in the four cases pend­ing before the Court: Oberge­fell v. Hodges, Tanco v. Haslam, DeBoer v. Sny­der, and Bourke v. Beshear. These cases chal­lenge Mar­riage Bans in Ohio, Ten­nessee, Michi­gan, and Ken­tucky, state con­sti­tu­tional amend­ments that define mar­riage as exclu­sively between one man and one woman. The brief, filed on behalf of a coali­tion of 25 orga­ni­za­tions, recounts how dis­crim­i­na­tion tar­get­ing dis­ad­van­taged groups – odi­ous arti­facts such as slav­ery, seg­re­ga­tion, bans on inter­ra­cial mar­riage, and laws sub­ju­gat­ing women – all now con­sid­ered anachro­nis­tic blem­ishes – were jus­ti­fied by reli­gious and moral dis­ap­proval, an argu­ment that has been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. The brief also argues that over­turn­ing the mar­riage bans would not only ensure that reli­gious con­sid­er­a­tions do not improp­erly influ­ence which mar­riages the state can rec­og­nize, but would also allow reli­gious groups to decide the def­i­n­i­tion of mar­riage for them­selves. Reli­gions are, and absolutely should remain, free to sol­em­nize and rec­og­nize mar­riages as they see fit, as they do when it comes to inter­faith mar­riages or mar­riages post-divorce. This brief is just the lat­est effort by ADL to advance Les­bian, Gay, Bisex­ual, and Trans­gen­der (LGBT) rights around the coun­try and across the globe. ADL was joined on the briefs by The Amer­i­can Jew­ish Com­mit­tee; Bend the Arc – A Jew­ish Part­ner­ship for Jus­ticeThe Cen­tral Con­fer­ence of Amer­i­can Rab­bis and the Women of Reform Judaism; Global Jus­tice Insti­tute; Hadas­sah – The Women’s Zion­ist Orga­ni­za­tion of Amer­ica, Inc.; The Hindu Amer­i­can Foun­da­tion; The Inter­faith Alliance Foun­da­tion; The Japan­ese Amer­i­can Cit­i­zens League; Jew­ish Social Pol­icy Action Net­work (JSPAN); Keshet; Luther­ans Concerned/North Amer­ica; Met­ro­pol­i­tan Com­mu­nity Church; More Light Pres­by­te­ri­ans; The National Coun­cil of Jew­ish Women; Nehirim; Peo­ple for the Amer­i­can Way Foun­da­tion; Pres­by­ter­ian Wel­come; Rec­on­cil­ing­Works: Luther­ans for Full Par­tic­i­pa­tion; Recon­struc­tion­ist Rab­bini­cal Col­lege and Jew­ish Recon­struc­tion­ist Com­mu­ni­ties; Reli­gious Insti­tute, Inc.; The Sikh Amer­i­can Legal Defense and Edu­ca­tion Fund; Soci­ety for Human­is­tic Judaism; South Asian Amer­i­cans Lead­ing Together; T’ruah: Rab­bis for Human Rights-North Amer­ica; and Women’s League for Con­ser­v­a­tive Judaism. The law firm Green­berg Trau­rig LLP pre­pared the friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of ADL.

Tags: , ,