Upload
downing-post-news
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
1/55
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
2/55
i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Thiscaseconcernswhether thePeoplehavethe
righttodefine“marriage”orwhethertheFourteenth
AmendmentofthefederalConstitutionremovesthat
rightfromthem.Forthemostpart, thePeoplehavedefined“marriage”asaunionbetweenonemanand
one woman. They have chosen that definition of
marriage because of a deference to traditional wis
dom,andbecauseofsound,contemporaryarguments.
Recently, various individuals have sought to
changeseveralaspectsofthedefinitionof“marriage.”
InsomeStates,thePeopleagreedwiththem,andin
otherStates,thePeoplepreferredthetraditionaldef
inition of marriage. At the heart of the redefinition
attemptswastheargumentthatthe traditionaldef
initionofmarriageviolatedthedignityofsexualmi
norities.InStateswherethePeopledidnotfindthat
argument compelling, it changed into the argument
thatthetraditionaldefinitionofmarriagewasbeing
maintainedforthe purposeofviolatingthedignityof
sexual minorities. This is simply not the case. The
People’s desire topreserve the traditionaldefinition
ofmarriageisneitherinspiredbyanimusnorbigotry.
Itisachoicemadebyinformedandengagedindivid
ualswhoseektostrikeabalancebetweenpreserving
therightsofreligiousbelieverswhilealsopromoting
thedignityofsexualminorities.
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
3/55
ii
QUESTIONS PRESENTED–Continued
Thequestionspresentedare:
1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a
statetolicenseamarriagebetweentwopeopleofthe
samesex?
2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a
statetorecognizeamarriagebetweentwo people of
the same sex when their marriage was lawfully li
censedandperformedout-of-state?
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
4/55
iii
TABLEOFCONTENTS
Page
TABLEOFAUTHORITIES................................... iv
STATEMENT OF IDENTITY AND INTEREST
OFTHE AMICUS CURIAE............................... 1SUMMARYOFTHEARGUMENT....................... 1
ARGUMENT........................................................... 5
A. Sexual Orientation Does Not Fit WithinTheEqualProtectionJurisprudenceFramework.............................................................. 5
B. ReligiousLibertyIsAFundamentalRightThat, When Properly Respected, BroadlyProtectsThePersonalDutyToLiveOne’sFaith............................................................. 9
C. ABroadAndFundamentalConflictExistsBetween Religious Liberty And SexualOrientationProtections............................... 14
D. RecognizingSexualOrientationAsASuspect Class Will Legally Undermine The
Ability Of Many Religious People To LiveTheirFaiths................................................. 26
1. ExclusionfromthePublicSquare........ 30
2. EncroachmentonPrivateLiberty........ 33
3. Defining Millions of Religious BelieversasBigots........................................... 36
CONCLUSION....................................................... 39
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
5/55
iv
TABLEOFAUTHORITIES
Page
C ASES
SUPREMECOURT
Adarand Constr., Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200(1995).......................................................................26
Baker v. Nelson,409U.S.810(1972)...........................2
Bowen v. Gilliard,483U.S.587(1987).......................8
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473U.S.432(1985)..........................................7,8,27,29
Clark v. Jeter,486U.S.456(1988)............................26
Corp. of Presiding Bishop of Church of JesusChrist of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos,483U.S.
327(1987)................................................................13
Craig v. Boren,429U.S.190(1976)...........................29
Frazee v. Illinois Dept. of Employment Sec.,489U.S.829(1989)........................................................19
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church& Sch. v. EEOC,132S.Ct.694(2012)............11,13
McDaniel v. Paty,435U.S.618(1978)......................38
Plyler v. Doe,457U.S.202(1982)................................8
Romer v. Evans,517U.S.620(1996).....................7,26Swanner v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commis
sion, 513U.S.979(1994)........................................31
Thomas v. Review Board, 450U.S.707(1981)..........19
United States v. Ballard, 322U.S.78(1944).............19
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
6/55
v
TABLEOFAUTHORITIES–Continued
Page
United States v. Windsor,133S.Ct.2675(2013).... passim
Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld,420U.S.636(1975)..........29
West Va. Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624(1943).......................................................................38
CIRCUITCOURT
American Family Ass’n v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 277F.3d1114(9thCir.2002)................20
Barnes-Wallace v. City of San Diego,704F.3d1067(9thCir.2012)................................................34
Bostic v. Shaefer,760F.3d352(4thCir.2014)......2,27
Boy Scouts of Am. v. Wyman,335F.3d80 (2dCir.2003).................................................................32
Canyon Ferry Baptist Church of E. Helena v.Unsworth,556F.3d1021(9thCir.2009).........10,12
Catholic League for Religious & Civil Rights v.City & Cnty. of San Francisco,624F.3d1043(9thCir.2010)...................................................12,20
DeBoer v. Snyder,772F.3d388(6thCir.2014).....2,27
Dixon v. Univ. of Toledo,702F.3d269(6thCir.
2012)........................................................................20
Harper v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 445 F.3d1166(9thCir.2006).................................................21
Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, 664 F.3d 865 (11thCir.2011).................................................................20
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
7/55
vi
TABLEOFAUTHORITIES–Continued
Page
Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014)....................................................................2,27
Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Srvs.,682F.3d1(1stCir.2012).................2,27
Morrison v. Bd. of Educ. of Boyd Cnty., 521F.3d602(6thCir.2008)..........................................21
Parker v. Hurley, 514F.3d87(1stCir.2008).............21
Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,358F.3d599(9thCir.2004).........................................................35
Redgrave v. Boston Symphony Orchestra, Inc.,855F.2d888(1stCir.1988)....................................31
SmithKline Beecham Corporation v. Abbott Laboratories,740F.3d471(9thCir.2014).........2,27
Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commis sion, 165F.3d692(9thCir.1999)...........................31
Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commis sion, 220F.3d1134(9thCir.2000).........................31
Ward v. Polite, 667F.3d727(6thCir.2012)..............20
Zamecnik v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. No. 204,636F.3d874(7thCir.2011)....................................21
DISTRICTCOURT
Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of Am., 275F.Supp.2d1259(S.D.Cal.2003).............................34
Gadling-Cole v. West Chester Univ., 868F.Supp.2d390(E.D.Pa.2012)................................35
http:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2d
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
8/55
vii
TABLEOFAUTHORITIES–Continued
Page
Hansen v. Ann Arbor Pub.Schs.,293F.Supp.2d780(E.D.Mich.2003).............................................21
Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F.Supp.2d 1181 (D.Utah2013).................................................................2
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F.Supp.2d 921(N.D.Cal.2010).................................................18,19
Slater v. Douglas Cnty.,743F.Supp.2d1188(D.Or.2010)..................................................................36
STATECOURTS
Attorney Gen. v. Desilets, 636 N.E.2d 233(Mass.1994)............................................................31
Cochran v. City of Atlanta, Georgia,No.1:15cv-00477-LMM(N.D.Ga.,Feb.18,2015)..............21
Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 284 P.3d428(N.M.Ct.App.2012)........................................19
Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock,2013-NMSC040,309P.3d53......................................................19
Ferguson v. JONAH ,No.L-5473-12(N.J.Super. Ct.,L.Div.,Feb.10,2015)......................................21
Hernandez v. Robles,855N.E.2d1(N.Y.2006).........37State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers, Inc.,
Nos. 13-2-00871-5, 13-2-00953-3 (Wash. Super.Ct.,Feb.18,2015)............................................20
http:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2d
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
9/55
viii
TABLEOFAUTHORITIES–Continued
Page
STATUTES&RULES
42U.S.C.§2000e........................................................35
Cal.Bus.&Prof.Code§865......................................23
D.C.Code§7-1231.14a..............................................23
N.J.Stat.§45:1-55.....................................................23
Sup.Ct.R.37.2(a)........................................................1
Sup.Ct.R.37.6.............................................................1
OTHERA UTHORITIES
1 Corinthians 7:1-6(NewAmerican Bible, Re
visedEdition)..........................................................15 Acts 6:2-4 (NewAmericanBible, Revised Edi
tion)..........................................................................11
Acts 5:29 (New American Bible, Revised Edition)..........................................................................12
American Psychological Association, Answersto your questions: For a better understandingof sexual orientation and homosexuality (2008),available at www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.pdf(lastvisitedFeb.24,2015).................................8
American Psychological Association, Report ofthe American Psychological Association Task
Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responsesto Sexual Orientation (2009).....................................8
Catholic Church, Catechism of the CatholicChurch §2357(2012)........................................28,36
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientationhttp://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
10/55
ix
TABLEOFAUTHORITIES–Continued
Page
Catholic Church, Catechism of the CatholicChurch §2358(2012)..............................................17
Catholic Church, Catechism of the CatholicChurch §§2392-2400(2012)...................................16
CBC News, World Sikh group against gaymarriage bill, March 28, 2005, available athttp://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/world-sikh-group-against-gay-marriage-bill-1.536239(lastvisitedFeb.24,2015)..........................................................37
Chai R. Feldblum, Moral Conflict and Con flicting Liberties,in Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, 123
(DouglasLaycock, et al.eds.2008)...................14,33DanMorris-Young, Eight California lawmakers,
San Francisco archbishop exchange letters on faculty handbook, Feb. 20, 2015, NationalCatholicReporter,available at http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/eight-california-lawmakers-take-issue-san-francisco-archbishop-facultyhandbook(lastvisitedFeb.24,2015).....................24
Deuteronomy 15:11 (NewAmerican Bible, RevisedEdition)..........................................................11
DonLattin, Dalai Lama Speaks on Gay Sex: He says its wrong for Buddhists but not for society,SFGate,June11,1997,available at http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Dalai-Lama-Speaks-on-Gay-Sex-He-says-it-s-wrong-2836591.php.............37
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/world-sikh-grouphttp://ncronline/http://www/http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/world-sikh-grouphttp://ncronline/http://www/
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
11/55
x
TABLEOFAUTHORITIES–Continued
Page
Douglas Laycock, Sex, Atheism, and the Free Exercise of Religion,88U.Det.MercyL.Rev.407(2011)................................................................18
Genesis38:9-10(NewAmericanBible,RevisedEdition)....................................................................15
Hebrews 10:24 (NewAmerican Bible, RevisedEdition)....................................................................10
Hebrews 10:25 (NewAmerican Bible, RevisedEdition)....................................................................13
HisHolinessPopeFrancis, Meeting with Families, Jan. 16, 2015, available at http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/
january/documents/papa-francesco_20150116_srilanka-filippine-incontro-famiglie.html (lastvisitedMar.18,2015).............................................17
HumanRightsCampaign,The Best of the Worst:Catholic Bishops Across the Country,2014,available at http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources /The_Best_of_the_Worst.pdf(lastvisitedFeb.24,2015)..................................................................24
Isaiah 58:5-7 (New American Bible, RevisedEdition)....................................................................10
James 1:27(NewAmericanBible,RevisedEdition)..........................................................................10
James 2:26(NewAmericanBible,RevisedEdition)..........................................................................10
James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785)....................10
http://w2/http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resourceshttp://w2/http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
12/55
xi
TABLEOFAUTHORITIES–Continued
Page
JamesPhelan, Successful Outcomes of SexualOrientation Change Efforts (SOCE): An Annotated Bibliography (2014).....................................8
Jennifer Abodeely, Thou Shall Not Discriminate: A Proposal for Limiting First Amendment Defenses to Discrimination in Public
Accommodations,12Scholar585(2010)................34
Jill P. Capuzzo, Group Loses Tax Break OverGay Union Issue,N.Y.Times,Sept.18,2007,available at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09 /18/nyregion/18grove.html (last visited Jan.25,2013)..................................................................22
JosephBoyle,The Place of Religion in the Practical Reasoning of Individuals and Groups,43Am.J.Juris.1(1998)...........................................9
Katie Zezima, Obey Same-Sex Marriage Law,Officials Told, N.Y. Times, April 26, 2004,available at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04 /26/us/obey-same-sex-marriage-law-officials-told.html(lastvisitedFeb.24,2015).............................23
Laurie Goodstein, Bishops Say Rules on Gay Parents Limit Freedom of Religion,N.Y.Times,Dec.28,2011,available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/us/for-bishops-a-battle-over-whose-rights-prevail.html?pagewanted=all (last visitedFeb.24,2015)...................................................22
Leviticus 18:22 (NewAmericanBible, RevisedEdition)....................................................................37
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04http://www.nytimes/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04http://www.nytimes/
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
13/55
xii
TABLEOFAUTHORITIES–Continued
Page
LifeSiteNews, APA: Classifying pedophilia asa ‘sexual orientation’ was an ‘error,’ Nov. 4,2013,available at https://www.lifesitenews.com /
news/apa-classifying-pedophilia-as-a-sexual-orientation-was-an-error (last visited Mar.11,2015)....................................................................8
Lynn D. Wardle, A House Divided: Same-Sex Marriage and Dangers to Civil Rights,4LibertyU.L.Rev.537(2010).......................................25
Marc D. Stern, Same-Sex Marriage and theChurches, in Same-SexMarriageandReligiousLiberty: Emerging Conflicts 1-58 (DouglasLaycock, et al. eds.,2008).......................................22
Mark Strasser, Public Policy, Same-Sex Marriage, and Exemptions for Matters of Con
science,12Fla.CoastalL.J.135(2010).................33
MartinLutherKing,Jr., Letter From Birmingham Jail (1963),available at http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/kingweb/liberation_curriculum/pdfs/letterfrombirmingham_wwcw.pdfat9(lastvisitedFeb.24,2015)..............................................12
Matthew 22:21 (NewAmerican Bible, RevisedEdition)....................................................................12
Matthew 25:34-40 (New American Bible, RevisedEdition)..........................................................11
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Bigot,available at http://www.merriam-webster.com /dictionary/bigot(lastvisitedFeb.24,2015).............7
http:///reader/full/https://www.lifesitenews.comhttp://mlk-kpp01/http:///reader/full/http://www.merriam-webster.comhttp:///reader/full/https://www.lifesitenews.comhttp://mlk-kpp01/http:///reader/full/http://www.merriam-webster.com
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
14/55
xiii
TABLEOFAUTHORITIES–Continued
Page
PewResearch Center, Section 3: Social & Political Issues: Homosexuality and Same-Sex
Marriage,Sept.22,2014,available at http://
www.pewforum.org/2014/09/22/section-3-social-political-issues/(lastvisitedFeb.24,2014)...........38
Robert P. George, Marriage, Religious Liberty,and the “Grand Bargain” , July 19, 2012,available at http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/07/5884/(lastvisitedFeb.24,2015)....16,18
Romans1:26-27(NewAmericanBible,RevisedEdition)....................................................................37
RonaldJ.Colombo,The Naked Private Square
(2012),HofstraUniv.LegalStudiesResearchPaperNo.12-26,at29-30,available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2173801....................................13
Rotseah uShmirat Nefesh 1:14(Rabbi EliyahuTouger,trans.,MoznaimPublishing1997) ............11
ScottSloan,Commission Sides with Gay Groupagainst Hands on Originals,LexingtonHerald-Leader, Nov. 26, 2012, available at http://www.kentucky.com/2012/11/26/2421990/cityrules-hands-on-originals.html(lastvisitedFeb.24,2015)........................................................................23
ShimaBaradaran-Robison, et al., Religious Monopolies and the Commodification of Reli
gion,32Pepp.L.Rev.885(2005)...........................39
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/09/22/section-3-socialhttp://www.thepublicdiscourse/http://www.kentucky.com/2012/11/26/2421990/cityruleshttp://www.pewforum.org/2014/09/22/section-3-socialhttp://www.thepublicdiscourse/http://www.kentucky.com/2012/11/26/2421990/cityrules
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
15/55
xiv
TABLEOFAUTHORITIES–Continued
Page
SiouxCityJournal, Official: Iowa Clerks MustObey Marriage Ruling,April17,2009,available at http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/official-
iowaclerks-must-obey-marriage-ruling/article_b4f5e728-35b1-5d30-941d-8df2d4b34206.html(lastvisitedFeb.24,2015)......................................24
Statement on Signing the National Defense AuthorizationAct forFiscalYear2013,2013DailyComp.Pres.Docs.00004,p.1 (Jan.2,2013)........................................................................24
Suzanne B. Goldberg, Equality Without Tiers,77S.Cal.L.Rev.481(2004)...................................29
TheBahá’íFaith, Lights of Guidance: A Bahá’í Reference File,#1222.............................................36
TheKoran431,Surah 33:35(ArthurJ.Arberry,trans.,OxfordUniv.Press1983)............................11
TheKoran662,Surah 107:1-7(ArthurJ.Arberry,trans.,OxfordUniv.Press1983)............................11
TheoSandfort, et al.,Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders,58ArchivesofGen.Psychiatry85(Jan.2001)..............................28
The Southern Baptist Convention, Resolutionon Homosexuality of the Southern BaptistConvention (1988), available at http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/610 (last visited Feb. 24,2015)........................................................................36
http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/officialhttp://www/http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/officialhttp://www/
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
16/55
xv
TABLEOFAUTHORITIES–Continued
Page
ThomasKaplan, Rights Collide as Town ClerkSidesteps Role in Gay Marriages,N.Y.Times,Sept.27,2011,available at http://www.nytimes.
com/2011/09/28/nyregion/rights-clash-as-town-clerk-rejects-her-role-in-gay-marriages.html(lastvisitedFeb.24,2015)......................................23
TimothyKeller,The Meaning of Marriage: Facing the Complexities of Commitment with theWisdom of God 221(2011)................................15,16
TimothySamuelShah,TheWitherspoonInstitute Task Force on International ReligiousFreedom, Religious Freedom: Why Now? De
fending an Embattled Human Right 12
(2012).........................................................................9
Torah Declaration, Declaration On The Torah Approach To Homosexuality, available athttp://www.torahdec.org (lastvisitedFeb.24,2015)........................................................................36
United Methodist Church, The Book of Disci pline of the United Methodist Church,¶304.3(2012)..........................................................36
http://www.nytimes/http:///reader/full/http://www.torahdec.orghttp://www.nytimes/http:///reader/full/http://www.torahdec.org
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
17/55
1
STATEMENTOFIDENTITYAND
INTERESTOFTHE AMICUS CURIAE1
CatholicAnswers isAmerica’s largest lay-run
organization dedicated to Catholic apologetics and
evangelization.Itbeganin1979andusesawideva
riety of media to explain and defend the teachingsof the Catholic Church. These media include print,
audioand video publications,aswellasadailylive
call-inradioprogramandextensiveonlineresources.
CatholicAnswersisanapostolatededicated toserv
ingChristbybringingthefullnessofCatholic truth
to the world. It helps good Catholics become better
Catholics, bring former Catholics “home,” and lead
non-Catholicsintothefullnessofthefaith.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARYOFTHEARGUMENT
ThisCourthasbeenaskedtodeterminewhether
the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to li
censeamarriagebetweentwopeopleofthesamesex.
This determination necessarily requires the recog
nition of sexual orientation as a suspect or quasi-
suspectclassforpurposesof federalequalprotection
1 Thisbriefisfiledwiththeconsentofallparties;copiesoftheirconsentlettershavebeensubmittedtothisCourt.Sup.Ct.R.37.2(a).Pursuant toRule 37.6, counsel for amicus certifiesthatthisbriefwasnotauthoredinwholeorinpartbycounselfor any other party and that no person or entity other thanamicusorhiscounselhasmadeamonetarycontributiontothepreparationorsubmissionofthisbrief.Sup.Ct.R.37.6.
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
18/55
2
jurisprudence. To recognize sexual orientation as a
suspect class, however, would necessarily diminish
the ability of religious individualsand communities
inthe UnitedStates toliveaccordingto theirfaith.
Moreover, this Court has previously conspicuously
avoided answering the question of whether sexualorientation is a suspect or quasi-suspect class. See
United States v. Windsor,133S.Ct.2675,2707(2013)
(Scalia, J., dissenting) (“The sum of all the Court’s
nonspecific hand-waving is that this law is invalid
maybe on equal-protection grounds, maybe on sub
stantive-due-processgrounds,andperhapswithsome
amorphous federalism component playing a role.”)
(parenthesesomitted); Baker v. Nelson,409U.S.810
(1972).
Some federal courts have recently interpreted
thisCourt’srulingsasmandatingthatsexualorien
tationbeconsideredasuspectclassificationsubjectto
“heightenedscrutiny.”SmithKline Beecham Corpora
tion v. Abbott Laboratories, 740 F.3d 471 (9th Cir.
2014); see also Kitchen v. Herbert,961F.Supp.2d1181
(D.Utah2013),aff ’d,755F.3d1193(10thCir.2014);
Bostic v. Shaefer,760F.3d352(4thCir.2014).Other
federal courts, however, have been reluctant to so
hold. DeBoer v. Snyder,772F.3d388,402-03(6thCir.2014).
Oneofthegreatestconcernsofferedbycourtsis
the reality that recognizing sexual orientation as a
suspectclasswouldhave“far-reachingimplications.”
Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept. of Health & Human
Srvs.,682F.3d1,9(1stCir.2012)(“[T]ocreatesucha
http:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2d
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
19/55
3
newsuspectclassification forsame-sexrelationships
would have far-reaching implications ... which we
areneitherempoweredtodonorwillingtopredict.”);
see also Windsor, supra,133S.Ct.at2715(Alito,J.,
dissenting) (“The long-term consequences of this
change are not now known and are unlikely to beascertainable for some time to come.”). One of the
most significant of those far-reaching consequences
would be its harmful impact on religious liberty.
Thereisalreadyabroadandintenseconflictbetween
thegayrightsmovementandreligiouslibertyregard
ing marriage, family, and sexual behavior. If the
Courtcreatesanewsuspectclassificationforsexual
orientation, it will take sides in that conflict and
placemillionsofreligiousbelieversandorganizations
atapotentiallyirreversibledisadvantageintheireffortstoconsistentlyliveouttheirfaith.
Thisbrieffirstestablishesthatabeliefthatmar
riage is exclusively the union of one man and one
woman,andshouldremainso,issupportedbymyri
adlegitimatebases,andisnotpredicateduponrank
discriminationorbigotry, as Petitioners would have
thisCourtbelieve.Next,thebriefaddressessomeof
thoselegitimatebasesbycommentingonthenature
ofreligiouslibertyitself,particularlyitsessentialelement that believers have space to not just believe
theirfaithbuttoliveit,bothprivatelyandpublicly.
Next,thebriefdescribestheexistingconflictbetween
thegayrightsmovementandreligiousbelieversand
organizations. Finally, thebrief identifies three spe
cific ways in which raising sexual orientation to a
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
20/55
4
suspectclasswouldintensifytheconflictinamanner
thatwoulddeeplyharmthelivesofthefiftypercent
of Americans who support traditional marriage on
religiousgrounds.
Notably,thisharmtoreligiouslibertywilloccur
even though equal protection principles serve to re
strict government rather than private actors. In an
eraofpervasivegovernmentinfluenceonprivatelife,
what affects the government inevitably affects the
governed, and all the more so when the change re
sults from a shift in basic constitutional values.
Transforming sexual orientation into a new suspect
class will pressure government actors to deny reli
gious citizensparticipation in the public square, an
exclusion thatwilleffectivelypreventbelieversfromacting on the requirements of their faiths. Such a
changewillalsoprovidealegalbasisforgovernment
agents to restrict the freedom of religious people
in the “private square” through the misuse of anti-
discriminationlawstopenalizereligiousbelieversfor
holding traditional religious beliefs. In sum, if this
Court declares that religious judgments about mar
riage,family,andsexualbehaviorarethelegalequiv
alentofracism,itwilldiminishthereligiousliberty
of millions of religious believers and religious communities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
21/55
5
ARGUMENT
A. SexualOrientationDoesNotFitWithinThe
EqualProtectionJurisprudenceFramework.
InUnited States v. Windsor,fourmembersofthe
Courtdissentedonvariousgroundsfromthemajority
opinionthattheDefenseofMarriageActwasuncon
stitutional.133S.Ct.2675.Themost emphatic rea
son for dissent was due to the Court’s painting of
supportoftraditionalmarriage,andoppositiontoho
mosexuality, on moral, philosophical, historical, cul
tural,sociological,orprudentialgroundsasbaseless
bigotry. Id. at2695(“Whathasbeenexplainedtothis
pointshould more than suffice toestablish that the
principalpurposeandthenecessaryeffectofthislaw
are to demean those persons who are in a lawfulsame-sex marriage.”); id. at 2696 (Roberts, J., dis
senting) (“At least without some more convincing
evidencethattheAct’sprincipalpurposewastocodify
malice, and that it furthered no legitimate govern
mentinterests,Iwouldnottarthepoliticalbranches
withthebrushofbigotry.”)(emphasisinoriginal);id.
at2708(Scalia,J.,dissenting)(“Butthemajoritysays
that the supporters of thisAct acted withmalice –
withthe purposetodisparageandtoinjuresame-sex
couples.”)(quotationsandcitationsomitted;emphasisinoriginal).
As JusticeScalianoted,however, the allegation
that support of traditional marriage represents a
“bare desire to harm” homosexuals is in fact so ab
surdastodemeantheSupremeCourt. Id.at2708-09
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
22/55
6
(Scalia, J., dissenting) (quoting Majority Opinion at
2693)(ellipsesomitted).BothheandJusticeAlitopro
videtheserviceofelucidatingupontherationaleswhich
makesupportoftraditionalmarriagenotbigotry,butin
steadarational,insightful,andcompellingviewpoint:
Wecanexpect[far-reachingconsequences]totakeplaceifsame-sexmarriagebecomeswidelyaccepted.... There are thosewho think thatallowingsame-sexmarriagewillseriouslyunderminetheinstitutionofmarriage.
Id.at2715(Alito,J.,dissenting)(citationsomitted).
By asking the Court to strike down [lawswhichdonotextendmarriagetocoversame-sex couples] as not satisfying some form of
heightened scrutiny, [Appellees] are reallyseekingtohavetheCourtresolveadebatebetweentwocompetingviewsofmarriage.Thefirstand older view ...seesmarriageasanintrinsically opposite-sex institution ... createdforthepurposeofchannelingheterosexualintercourseintoastructurethatsupportschildrearing....Theother,newerviewis...a vision that primarily defines marriage asthe solemnization of mutual commitment –markedbystrongemotionalattachmentand
sexualattraction–betweentwopersons.Proponentsofsame-sexmarriagearguethatbecausegenderdifferentiationisnotrelevanttothisvision,theexclusionofsame-sexcouplesfromthe institution ofmarriageisrankdiscrimination.
Id.at2718(Alito,J.,dissenting).
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
23/55
7
Merriam-Webster’s Online dictionary defines a
“bigot”as“apersonwhoisobstinatelyorintolerantly
devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;
especially:onewhoregardsortreatsthemembersof
agroup(asaracialorethnicgroup)withhatredand
intolerance.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Bigot, available at http://www.merriam-webster.com /
dictionary/bigot (last visited Feb. 24, 2015). If the
Courtintendstoviewsupportoftraditionalmarriage,
andanyoppositiontohomosexuality,asrankdiscrim
ination and mere bigotry, then religious adherents
wouldfaceanearlyinsurmountableobstacle. Romer
v. Evans,517U.S.620,633(1996)(“Itisnotwithin
our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this
sort.”).Here, the Courthas beenprovidedwith nu
merousreasonswhysupportoftraditionalmarriage,and opposition to equating sexual orientation with
race,islegitimate,intellectuallyhonest,andnotmere
bigotry.
The legal arguments should be sufficient in
themselves, including the strong reality that sexual
orientationsimplydoesnotfitwithintheequalpro
tectionlegalframeworkbecause:(1)homosexualityas
adefiningcharacteristicisnovel,systematicsocietal
discriminationagainsta“homosexualclass”hashada very short history, and such discrimination is al
readyquicklybecomingrelegatedtothepastthrough
the democratic process, see City of Cleburne v.
Cleburne Living Ctr.,473U.S.432,440-41(1985)(his
tory of discrimination prong); (2) differential treat
mentofhomosexualswithregardtomarriagelawsis
http:///reader/full/http://www.merriam-webster.comhttp:///reader/full/http://www.merriam-webster.com
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
24/55
8
directly related to achieving the purpose of having
marriagelaws, see id.(abilitytocontributetosociety
prong);(3)homosexualshaveachievedgreatpolitical
and societal power, see Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202,
216 n.14 (1982) (minority statusandpoliticalpower
prong); (4) sexual orientation, and particularly homosexuality, is neither immutable
2 nor discrete,
3 see
Bowen v. Gilliard,483U.S.587,602(1987)(immutability
2 AmericanPsychologicalAssociation, Answers to your questions: For a better understanding of sexual orientation and homosexuality(2008),available atwww.apa.org/topics/sorientation .pdf(lastvisitedFeb.24,2015)(“nofindingshaveemergedthatpermit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors”); James Phelan,Successful Outcomes of Sexual Orientation Change Efforts
(SOCE): An Annotated Bibliography (2014)(detailingmorethan
onehundredstudieswhichdocumentsexualorientationchange); American Psychological Association, Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation(2009)(“forsome,sexualorientationidentity...isfluidorhasanindefiniteoutcome.”).
3 The concept of sexualorientation is much broader thaneitherheterosexualityandhomosexuality,andthementalhealthprofessional associations have long debated classifying sexualattractionstoindividualsbasedonageassexualorientations–even including pedophilia as a sexual orientation in the firstprinting of the Fifth Edition of the Diagnostic and StatisticalManual of Mental Disorders. LifeSite News, APA: Classifying
pedophilia as a ‘sexual orientation’ was an ‘error,’ Nov.4,2013,available at https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/apa-classifying pedophilia-as-a-sexual-orientation-was-an-error(lastvisitedMar.11,2015).Itisalsodifficulttoimaginewhysexualorientationshouldnotincludepolyamory;therealityisthattheconceptofsexualorientationisundefinedandwillmostdefinitelymorphintosomethingquitedifferentfromwhattheCourtherecontemplates.
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientationhttps://www.lifesitenews.com/news/apa-classifyinghttp://www.apa.org/topics/sorientationhttps://www.lifesitenews.com/news/apa-classifying
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
25/55
9
anddiscretenessprong).However,inadditiontothe
legal arguments, the policy arguments – especially
thoseconcerningtheeffectsofmakingsexualorienta
tionasuspectclassificationonreligiousadherents–
arebothrelevantandenormouslyimportant.
B. Religious Liberty Is A Fundamental Right
That, When Properly Respected, Broadly
Protects The Personal Duty To Live One’s
Faith.
A group of religious liberty experts, including
adherents of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, re
centlyexplained:“Religionis...theefforttoachieve
a harmony with whatever transcendent order of re
ality there may be.” Timothy Samuel Shah, TheWitherspoon Institute Task Force on International
Religious Freedom, Religious Freedom: Why Now?
Defending an Embattled Human Right 12 (2012).
Thiseffortatharmonyisnotembodied“simply[in]a
setoftheoreticalbeliefsabout reality” butratherin
vibrant “human response to what is ultimate in re
ality.”JosephBoyle,The Place of Religion in the Prac
tical Reasoning of Individuals and Groups,43Am.J.
Juris.1,3(1998)(emphasisadded).
Religiousliberty,then,means“thefreedomtoen
gageone’sentireself”–includingtheselfinthecon
text ofcommunity – “inpursuitofultimatereality.”
Shah, Religious Freedom, supra,at16.Ourcountry’s
founders,whomadereligiouslibertythe“firstfreedom
in our Bill of Rights,” recognized this fundamental
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
26/55
10
human rightand its primacy.Canyon Ferry Baptist
Church of E. Helena v. Unsworth,556F.3d1021,1037
(9thCir.2009)(Noonan,J.,concurring).JamesMadi
sonhimselfunderstoodthat“[b]eforeanymancanbe
consideredasamemberofCivilSociety,hemustbe
considered as a subject of the Governor of theUniverse.”JamesMadison, Memorial and Remonstrance
Against Religious Assessments (1785).
A fundamental necessity in many religions, in
cludingChristianity,isacodeofconductthatappears
superficially unrelated to worship, prayer, or theol
ogy,andisoftenmanifestedbyserviceinthepublic
square.See, e.g., Isaiah 58:5-7(NewAmericanBible,
Revised Edition)4 (commanding believers to oppose
and cure social injustice asa formofreligious worship); James1:27(“Religionthatispure...is...to
care for orphans and widows in their affliction.”);
James2:26(“faithwithoutworksisdead”); Hebrews
10:24(“Wemustconsiderhowtorouseoneanotherto
love and good works.”). Christianity specifically
teachesthatactionsthatmaynotappearinherently
religiousareadirect,evenrequired,actofserviceto
God,asJesustaught:
[T]he righteous will answer him and say,
“Lord,whendidweseeyouhungryandfeedyou,orthirstyandgiveyoudrink?Whendidwe see you ill or in prison, and visit you?”
4 All biblical citations are to the New American Bible,RevisedEdition.
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
27/55
11
And the king will say to them in reply,“Amen,Isaytoyou,whateveryoudidforoneoftheseleastbrothersofmine,youdidforme.”
Matthew 25:34-40 (New American Bible, Revised
Edition).
This same religious obligation to serve God beyond the context of ceremonial worship occurs inother faiths, including JudaismandIslam.See, e.g.,
Deuteronomy 15:11 (“Open your hand freely to yourpoor and to your needy.”); Rotseah uShmirat Nefesh1:14(RabbiEliyahuTouger,trans.,MoznaimPublishing 1997) (“Whenever a person can save anotherperson’slife,buthefailstodoso,hetransgressesanegative commandment.”); see also The Koran 662,Surah 107:1-7 (Arthur J. Arberry, trans., OxfordUniv.Press1983)(requiringprovisionfortheneedsofthe poor); id. at 431, Surah 33:35 (almsgiving is apreconditiontoforgiveness).
Thus, religious believers fulfill spiritual obligations by meeting the physical needs of people in amyriadofways,throughadoptionagencies,homelessshelters, orphanages, medical clinics, job training,andotherpracticalassistance.Thisservicehasdeeptheological roots in the Christian office of “deacon,”
whichtheearlyChurchestablishedtosetapartspiritualleaderswhosemaindutywasto“serveattable”and serve those in need. Acts 6:2-4 (New AmericanBible,RevisedEdition).Thus,whileanactofservicemaynotincludeexplicitly“spiritual”conduct,itretainsafundamentallyreligiouscharacterformanypersonsof faith. See Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
28/55
12
Church & Sch. v. EEOC, 132S.Ct. 694, 709 (2012)(noting that even the “heads of congregations”have“secular”duties).
ThroughoutChurchhistory,thiscalltoserveGod
by serving His people has oftenbeenunderstood to
requirepoliticalengagement,anunderstandingwhich
playedakeyroleinourNation’sfoundingandinits
great civil rights movements. Canyon Ferry, supra,
556 F.3d at 1036-37 (Noonan, J., concurring). As
MartinLutherKing,Jr.explained,achurchthathad
no impact outside its four walls was an “irrelevant
socialclub,”notthevibrantlife-andculture-changing
institutionGod commanded it to be. Martin Luther
King,Jr., Letter From Birmingham Jail (1963),avail
able at http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/kingweb/liberation_
curriculum/pdfs/letterfrombirmingham_wwcw.pdfat 9
(lastvisitedFeb.24,2015).
Similarly,theCatholicChurchteachesitsmem
bersnotonlytorecognizecertainthingsasimmoral,
butalsotoopposethroughlawfulmeanssuchimmo
ralityasamatterofjustice. See Catholic League for
Religious & Civil Rights v. City & Cnty. of San Fran
cisco, 624 F.3d 1043, 1047 (9thCir. 2010) (en banc)
(theCatholic Church teachesthat“it was themoral
dutyofCatholicstooppose”changesregardingfamilylifeandstructure); see also Acts5:29(NewAmerican
Bible, Revised Edition) (“We must obey God rather
than men.”); Matthew 22:21 (“repay to Caesar what
belongstoCaesarandtoGodwhatbelongstoGod”).
The“veryexistence”ofreligiousgroupsis “dedicated
tothecollectiveexpressionandpropagationofshared
http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/kingweb/liberationhttp://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/kingweb/liberation
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
29/55
13
religiousideals,”amissionforwhichtheFirstAmend
mentgives“special solicitude.” Hosanna-Tabor, supra,
132 S.Ct. at 712-13 (Alito, J., concurring); see also
Hebrews 10:25 (“We should not stay away from our
assembly,asisthecustomofsome,butencourageone
another.”).
Despitethisexpansivelegal,theological,andcul
tural recognition of religion as an all-encompassing
wayoflife,somewishtopushreligiousbelieversand
communitiesoutofpubliclifebyshrinkingtheFirst
Amendment to protect only “freedom to worship.”
RonaldJ.Colombo,The Naked Private Square (2012),
HofstraUniv.LegalStudiesResearchPaperNo.12
26,at29-30,available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2173801.
Labeling it as “extreme,” this Courthas unanimously rejected the government’s analogous argu
ment that the First Amendment affords religious
groupsonlythesameconstitutionalprotectionsthat
“social club[s]” enjoy. Hosanna-Tabor, supra, 132
S.Ct.at706-09.Yetbymakingsexualorientationa
newprotectedclassunderourConstitution,thisCourt
would hand the government a tremendous weapon
with which to constrain traditional churches, syna
gogues,andmosquestocatechismandceremony,and
to force religious believers torestrict theexercise oftheirfaithtothosenarrowconfines.AsthisCourthas
alreadyobservedinthecontextofnondiscrimination
laws’applicationtoreligiousorganizations,the“[f]ear
ofpotentialliabilitymightaffectthewayanorgani
zation carried out what itunderstood tobe its reli
giousmission.”Corp. of Presiding Bishop of Church of
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2173801http://ssrn.com/abstract=2173801
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
30/55
14
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos, 483U.S.
327,336(1987).
C. A Broad And Fundamental Conflict Exists
Between Religious LibertyAnd Sexual Ori-
entationProtections.
Ifsexualorientationisfoundtobetheconstitu
tionalequivalentofrace,thenreligiousbelieverswho
affirmtraditionalbeliefsregardingmarriageandsex
ualitywillsuddenlybecometheequivalentofracists,
aswill their organizations, ministries, andoutreach
efforts. Both gay activists and traditional religious
believers recognize that there isa fundamentalcon
flict between their positions.According to Professor
Chai Feldblum, current Commissioner of the EqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission,“aninevitable
choice between liberties must come into play” with
theresultbeingtheremovalofsocietaltolerancefor
“private [religious] beliefsabout sexual orientation.”
Chai R. Feldblum, Moral Conflict and Conflicting
Liberties, in Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Lib
erty: Emerging Conflicts,123,153(DouglasLaycock, et
al.eds.2008).
CommissionerFeldblum claimed that the inevi
tableclashisbetween“identityliberty”ofhomosexu
als and “belief liberty” of religious believers. Id. at
130. But that assertion falsely assumes that many
religious persons do not define their identities by
theirfaith.Thisincorrectassumptiongoestothecore
oftheconflict:manygay-rightsadvocatesseesexual
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
31/55
15
orientation asamatter ofpersonalidentitybut dis
missreligiouslibertyasmerelyamatterofpersonal
opinion,occasionallytobetoleratedbutgenerallyto
besuppressed.Toooftengayrightsadvocatesequate
traditionalreligiousbeliefsregardingsexualorienta
tion and sexual conduct to racism, insisting thatthesetraditionalreligiousbeliefsshouldnotbetoler
atedoutsideatightlyrestrictedpersonalsphere.
Bycontrast,many traditionalreligiousbelieversapproach issues regarding sexualorientationasprimarilymoralquestionsaboutsexualbehavior,ratherthan personal identity. Moreover, many traditionalreligiousbelieversexperiencereligionasamatterofpersonal identityand deem religious liberty to be afundamentalrightnecessary to allowthem to fulfill
thatidentitybylivingouttheirdutytoobeyGod.Tothesepeople,allsexualbehavioroutsidethebondofmarriagebetweenamanandawomanissinfuland,out of obediencetoGodandrespectforHiswisdom,should be avoided on both a personal and societallevel.1 Corinthians 7:1-6(NewAmericanBible, Revised Edition); Genesis 38:9-10. This understandingforms the foundation of traditional Christian sexualmorality.
5
5 TheheadministerattheChurchoftheRedeemerinNew York City, explains the Christian understanding of sexual relationshipsasfollows:“TheChristiansexethiccanbesummarizedlikethis:Sex is for use within marriagebetween a manandwoman.”TimothyKeller, The Meaning of Marriage: Facingthe Complexities of Commitment with the Wisdom of God 221(2011).Astothebiblicalunderstandingofmarriage,traditionalChristianityteachesthat“[a]ccordingtotheBible,Goddevised
(Continuedonfollowingpage)
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
32/55
16
Suchreligiousbeliefsare,ofcourse,indeepcon
flictwithpopularconceptionsofsexuality.RobertP.
George,currentlyavisitingprofessoratHarvardLaw
School,recentlyidentifiedtheconflict:
Advocates of [same-sex marriage] are in
creasingly open in saying that they do notsee these disputes about sex and marriageas honest disagreements among reasonablepeopleofgoodwill. Theyare, rather, battlesbetweentheforcesofreason,enlightenment,andequality...andthoseofignorance,bigotry,anddiscrimination....
RobertP.George, Marriage, Religious Liberty, and the
“Grand Bargain” , July 19, 2012,available at http://
www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/07/5884 /(lastvisited
Feb.24,2015).
The reality, however, that proponents of tradi
tional marriage are not inspiredby “ignorance,big
otry,anddiscrimination”isobvious.EvenHisHoliness,
Pope Francis,upon whomthe“bigotry” label cannot
convincinglybeattached,hasrepeatedlyaffirmedthe
importanceofpromotingtraditionalmarriageandnot
acceptingsame-sexmarriage:
There are forms of ideological colonizationwhichareouttodestroythefamily.Theyare
marriageto...createastablehumancommunityforthebirthandnurtureofchildren,andtoaccomplish...thisbybringingthecomplementarysexesintoanenduringwhole-lifeunion.” Id. at16; see alsoCatholicChurch,Catechism of the Catholic Church§§2392-2400(2012).
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/07/5884http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/07/5884
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
33/55
17
notbornofdreams,ofprayers,ofclosenesstoGodorthemissionwhichGodgaveus;theycome from without, and for that reason Iam saying that they are forms of colonization.... While all too many people live indirepoverty,othersarecaughtupin...life
styles which are destructive of family lifeand the most basic demands of Christianmorality.Theseareformsofideologicalcolonization. The family is also threatened bygrowingeffortsonthepartofsometoredefinetheveryinstitutionofmarriage....
HisHolinessPopeFrancis, Meeting with Families,Jan.
16,2015,available athttp://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco /
en/speeches/2015/january/documents/papa-francesco_
20150116_srilanka-filippine-incontro-famiglie.html (last
visitedMar. 18,2015); see also Catechism, supra,at
§2358 (“[Homosexuals] must be accepted with re
spect,compassion,andsensitivity.Everysignofunjust
discriminationintheirregardshouldbeavoided.”).
Ifthemere“bigotry”theory,however,isadopted,
the policy justifications for promoting traditional
marriagewill not be the only casualty. Instead, the
“peopleofgoodwill”whohad“honestdisagreements”
willthemselvesbeatrisk:
The“excluders”aretobetreatedjustasracistsaretreated–sincetheyaretheequivalentofracists....Inthenameof“marriageequality”and“non-discrimination,”liberty–especiallyreligiouslibertyandthelibertyof
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francescohttp://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
34/55
18
conscience – and genuine equality are undermined.
George, Marriage, Religious Liberty, and the “Grand
Bargain” , supra.
Religiouslibertyscholar,ProfessorDouglasLay-cock, recently warned: “For the first time in nearly
300 years, important forces inAmerican society are
questioningthefreeexerciseofreligioninprinciple–
suggestingthatfreeexerciseofreligionmaybeabad
idea, or at least, a right to be minimized.” Douglas
Laycock,Sex, Atheism, and the Free Exercise of Reli
gion,88U.Det.MercyL.Rev.407(2011).Professor
Laycock explains his “sense ... that the deep dis
agreementsoversexualmorality...havegenerated
a much more pervasive hostility to certainkinds ofreligion, andthishostility hasconsequences.” Id.at
414.Hefurtherwarnsagainst taking a“path[that]
causes the verykinds of human suffering that reli
giouslibertyisdesignedtoavoid,”apathleadingto
anAmerica in which religious persons “who cannot
change their mind [about a moral issue] are sued,
fined,forcedtoviolatetheirconscience,andexcluded
fromoccupationsiftheyrefuse.” Id.at415,419.
Lestsuchawarningseemextreme,considerthe
proceedings below in which a federal district court
adopted as a finding of fact that “[r]eligious beliefs
that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or in
ferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and
lesbians.” Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F.Supp.2d
921,985(N.D.Cal.2010)(FindingNo.77).Insupport
http:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2d
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
35/55
19
ofthisremarkablefinding,thedistrictcourtcitedthe
religiousdoctrineoftheCatholicChurch,theSouth
ernBaptistConvention,theEvangelicalPresbyterian
Church, the Free Methodist Church, the Lutheran
Church–MissouriSynod,andtheOrthodoxChurch
ofAmerica. Id. at986(FindingNos.77(j),(k),(l),(m),(n),(o),(p)).
TheFirstAmendment,however,prohibitsfederal
courtsfromsittinginjudgmentofchurches’religious
doctrine. United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 86
(1944).“When thetriersoffactundertake” todeter
minethetruthofreligiousdoctrinesorbeliefs,“they
enter a forbidden domain.” Id. at 87. Protection of
religious beliefsdoes not “turnona judicialpercep
tion ofthe particularbelief orpractice inquestion.”Thomas v. Review Board, 450 U.S.707, 714 (1981).
Essentially,“[p]articularlyinthissensitivearea,itis
not within the judicial function and judicial compe
tencetoinquire”intoreligiousdoctrine. Id.at716; see
also Frazee v. Illinois Dept. of Employment Sec.,489
U.S.829,833-34(1989).
Consideranumberofrecentcasesinvolvingcon
flictsbetweenthegayrightsmovementandreligious
liberty:
• Aweddingphotographerwasorderedtopaynearly $6,700 because she declined on religious grounds to photograph a same-sexcommitment ceremony. Elane Photography,
LLC v. Willock,284P.3d428(N.M.Ct.App.2012),aff ’d,2013-NMSC-040,309P.3d53;
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
36/55
20
• Afloristwasfoundpersonallyliablefordamagesandattorney’sfeesfordecliningonreligiousgroundstoprovidefloralarrangementsforthesame-sexweddingofalong-timecustomer. State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flow
ers, Inc., Nos. 13-2-00871-5, 13-2-00953-3
(Wash.Super.Ct.,Feb.18,2015);
• Twograduatestudentsatpublicuniversitieswere expelled from their programs becausetheywerehonestabouttheeffectthattheirreligious beliefswouldhave ontheirabilitytocounselsame-sex couples.Compare Wardv. Polite, 667F.3d727(6thCir.2012)(reviving student’s free speech and free exerciseclaims) with Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, 664F.3d 865 (11th Cir. 2011) (denying prelimi
naryinjunctiverelieftostudent);
• AnAfrican-Americanwomanwasfiredfromherjobasapublicuniversity administratorforwritingaletterto theeditorof the localnewspaper expressing her religiously motivated viewpoint that the gay rights movement should not be equated with the civilrights movement. Dixon v. Univ. of Toledo,702F.3d269(6thCir.2012);
• A municipal governmentadopted anofficial
resolution “denouncing theCatholicChurchanddoctrinesofitsreligion”as“hatefulanddiscriminatoryrhetoric”becauseofthechurch’sposition that “Catholic agencies not placechildren for adoption in homosexual households.” Catholic League, supra, 624 F.3d at1047; see also American Family Ass’n v. City
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
37/55
21
& Cnty. of San Francisco, 277F.3d1114(9thCir.2002)(resolutionfromthesamemunicipality denouncing other religious groups’speech);
• Parentsofpublicschoolchildrenchallengeda
school district’s failure to notify them thattheirchildrenwouldbetaughttoaccepthomosexualrelationshipsdespitetheirparents’contrary religious beliefs. Parker v. Hurley,514F.3d87(1stCir.2008);
• Public school students have been forbiddenfrom expressing traditional religious viewpoints regarding homosexual behavior. See,
e.g., Zamecnik v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. No. 204, 636F.3d874,875-76(7thCir.2011);
Morrison v. Bd. of Educ. of Boyd Cnty.,521F.3d 602,605-06 (6th Cir. 2008); Hansen v. Ann Arbor Pub. Schs., 293 F.Supp.2d 780,782-83 (E.D. Mich. 2003); Harper v. PowayUnified Sch. Dist., 445 F.3d 1166, 1179-80(9thCir.2006);
• Amunicipalfirechiefwasfiredafterauthoring amen’s devotionalbook inhis personaltimewhichincludedbriefreferencestoChristianviewpointsonsexualmorality.Cochranv. City of Atlanta, Georgia, No. 1:15-cv
00477-LMM(N.D.Ga.,Feb.18,2015);
• A Jewish religious and counseling ministrywas found tobepotentiallyinviolation of astate Consumer Fraud Act if it describedhomosexualityasnot“anormalvariationofhuman sexuality.” Ferguson v. JONAH ,No.
http:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2d
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
38/55
22
L-5473-12 (N.J.Super.Ct.,L.Div.,Feb. 10,2015).
See also MarcD.Stern, Same-Sex Marriage and the
Churches, in Same-Sex Marriage andReligiousLib
erty:EmergingConflicts1-58(DouglasLaycock, et al.
eds.,2008)(collectingcases).
Conflictsandtensionbetweenreligiousbelievers
andthegovernmenthavenotsimplybeenlimitedto
thecourts:
• Catholic adoption agencies have been excludedbystategovernmentsfromprovidingadoption and foster care services in Massachusetts,Illinois,andWashington,D.C.,because of their religious refusal to place
childrenwithhomosexualcouples. See LaurieGoodstein, Bishops Say Rules on Gay Parents
Limit Freedom of Religion,N.Y.Times,Dec.28, 2011, available at http://www.nytimes.com /2011/12/29/us/for-bishops-a-battle-over-whoserights-prevail.html?pagewanted=all(lastvisitedFeb.24,2015);
• An evangelical ministry was found to haveviolatedaNewJerseyantidiscriminationlawfor refusing torentits facilitiesfor asame-sex commitment ceremony. See Jill P.Capuzzo, Group Loses Tax Break Over GayUnion Issue, N.Y. Times, Sept. 18, 2007,available at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09 /18/nyregion/18grove.html (last visited Jan.25,2013);
http:///reader/full/http://www.nytimes.comhttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/09http:///reader/full/http://www.nytimes.comhttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/09
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
39/55
23
• Smallbusinessesnationwiderunbyreligiousowners have faced charges before humanrightscommissionsforrefusingtocreateexpressiveproducts that advocate “gay pride”or endorse homosexual behavior. See ScottSloan, Commission Sides with Gay Groupagainst Hands on Originals,LexingtonHerald-Leader, Nov. 26, 2012, available at http://www.kentucky.com/2012/11/26/2421990/cityrules-hands-on-originals.html(lastvisitedFeb.24,2015);
• California, New Jersey and the District ofColumbia have passed laws banning psychologists from counseling minor clientsaboutwaystodiminishsexualattractiontoward–orsexualconductwith–membersof
theclient’ssamesex.Cal.Bus.&Prof.Code§865; N.J. Stat. §45:1-55; D.C. Code §71231.14a;
• Justicesofthe peace inMassachusetts, andtownclerksinIowaandNewYork,weretoldby the States’ legal counsel that they mustperform same-sex marriages despite religiousobjectionsor faceliabilityfordiscrimination. See Katie Zezima, Obey Same-Sex
Marriage Law, Officials Told, N.Y. Times,
April26,2004,available at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/26/us/obey-same-sex-marriage-law-officials-told.html (last visited Feb. 24,2015);
6
6See also Thomas Kaplan, Rights Collide as Town Clerk
Sidesteps Role in Gay Marriages, N.Y. Times, Sept. 27, 2011,(Continuedonfollowingpage)
http://www.kentucky.com/2012/11/26/2421990/cityruleshttp://www.nytimes/http://www.kentucky.com/2012/11/26/2421990/cityruleshttp://www.nytimes/
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
40/55
24
• Congress’recentenactmentofreligiouslibertyprotection formilitaryservicemembers, includingexplicitprotectionformilitarychaplains whose religious beliefs prohibit themfrom conducting same-sex commitment ceremonies was criticized in the President’s
signing statement as “an unnecessary andill-advisedprovision.”Statement onSigningthe National Defense Authorization Act forFiscal Year 2013, 2013 Daily Comp. Pres.Docs.00004,p.1(Jan.2,2013);
• CaliforniastatelegislatorsrecentlydemandedthataCatholicbishopchange hispolicythatadherencetoCatholic moral teachingwasaprerequisitetoemploymentinateachingcapacity in Catholic schools. Dan Morris-
Young, Eight California lawmakers, San Francisco archbishop exchange letters on faculty handbook,Feb.20,2015,NationalCatholic Reporter, available at http://ncronline.org /blogs/ncr-today/eight-california-lawmakers-takeissue-san-francisco-archbishop-faculty-handbook(lastvisitedFeb.24,2015). 7
available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/nyregion/rightsclash-as-town-clerk-rejects-her-role-in-gay-marriages.html (last
visitedFeb.24,2015);SiouxCityJournal, Official: Iowa Clerks Must Obey Marriage Ruling,April17,2009,available at http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/official-iowaclerks-must-obey-marriage-ruling/article_b4f5e728-35b1-5d30-941d-8df2d4b34206.html(lastvisitedFeb.24,2015).
7 Unsurprisingly, the bishop targeted had been includedina list bya gay rights groupidentifying the “worst”bishops.See HumanRightsCampaign, The Best of the Worst: Catholic
(Continuedonfollowingpage)
http:///reader/full/http://ncronline.orghttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/nyregion/rightshttp:///reader/full/http://ncronline.orghttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/nyregion/rights
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
41/55
25
The attacks on religious liberty by the govern
menthave, inturn, ledto increasingreligious intol
erancebyprivateindividuals.Thegreatest example
ofthiscameinthewakeofthepassageofProposition
8inCaliforniain2008.Numerousreligiousbelievers
losttheirjobs,andbusinessesownedbyreligiousbelievers faced boycotts when it was discovered that
theyhaddonatedtothepro-Proposition8campaign.
See Lynn D. Wardle, A House Divided: Same-Sex
Marriage and Dangers to Civil Rights, 4 Liberty
U.L.Rev.537,555-57(2010).
MembersoftheChurchofJesusChristofLatter-
daySaints inparticular were heavily targeted after
theirnamesandaddresseswerepublishedonthein
ternetresulting“inaspateofviolentthreatsagainst,attacks upon, and intrusions upon select Mormons,
theirplacesofworship,theircommunities,[and]their
businesses...byhomosexualactiviststopunishand
‘pay back’ that religious community.” Id. Turning
sexualorientationintoasuspectclasswouldprovide
anewchannelforthisrage,leadingtoawaveofas
saultsonreligiousliberty–assaultsbybothprivate
individuals,andassaultswiththepowerofthestate
behindthem.
Religiouslibertymustbereinforced.The“righttoreligious freedom” cannot be redefined to mean the
Bishops Across the Country, 2014,available at http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/The_Best_of_the_Worst.pdf(lastvisitedFeb.24,2015).
http://www.hrc/http://www.hrc/
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
42/55
26
“righttoresignone’sjob”orthe“righttorecantone’s
beliefs.”Instead,itmustremaintherighttoholdtra
ditionalreligiousbeliefs,eventhosenotsharedbythe
current cultural elite, without fear of retaliation at
theworkplaceorexpulsionfromthepublicsquare.
D. Recognizing Sexual Orientation As A Sus-
pectClassWillLegallyUndermineTheAbil-
ityOfManyReligiousPeopleToLiveTheir
Faiths.
InconsideringwhetheralawviolatestheEqual
Protection Clause of the FourteenthAmendment or
the implicit equal protection guarantee of the Fifth
Amendment, this Court applies different levels of
scrutinytodifferenttypesofclassifications.Clark v. Jeter,486U.S.456,461(1988); Adarand Constr., Inc.
v. Peña,515U.S.200,217(1995).Forexample,Clas
sificationsbasedonraceandnationaloriginaresub
ject to strict scrutiny, while classifications based on
sex and illegitimacy receive intermediate scrutiny.
Clark, supra, 486 U.S. at 461. Virtually all other
classesreceiverationalbasisscrutiny,whichdeferen
tially asks only whether the statutory classification
inquestionisconceivably“rationallyrelatedtoale
gitimate governmental purpose.” Id. Classificationsbasedonsexualorientationhavealwaysbeensubject
torational basis scrutinyincasesbeforethisCourt.
See Romer, supra, 517U.S. at 632; Windsor, supra,
133S.Ct.2675.
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
43/55
27
It is only recently, in interpreting the Court’s
ruling inWindsor that somefederalcourtshavebe
guntoerroneouslyclaimthatsexualorientationisa
suspectclassificationsubjectto“heightenedscrutiny.”
SmithKline, supra, 740 F.3d at 481; Kitchen, supra,
961 F.Supp.2d at 1205,aff ’d, 755F.3d1193; Bostic, supra,760F.3dat378-84.Otherfederalcourts,how
ever, have correctly identified that Windsor did not
raise sexual orientation to a suspect classification.
DeBoer, supra, 772 F.3d at 402-03 (“Not one of the
plaintiffs’ theories,however,makes thecase forcon
stitutionalizing the definition of marriage and for
removing the issuefromthe place ithasbeensince
thefounding:inthehandsofstatevoters.”).
As with recognizing fundamental rights, courtsmustbecarefulaboutidentifyingnewsuspectclasses
because such recognition takes important decisions
out of the normal “democratic processes.” City of
Cleburne, supra, 473 U.S. at 440. Such caution is
particularlyaptheregiventhe“far-reachingimplica
tions”ofraisingsexualorientationtoasuspectclass.
U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Srvs., supra,682F.3d
at 9; Windsor, supra, 133 S.Ct. at 2715 (Alito, J.,
dissenting).
Itmightbe argued that regardless ofany proffered reasons for maintaining traditional marriage,
doingso ignoresthe interests of homosexuals them
selvesandmerelyattemptstosacrificetheirwell-being
forthegeneralgoodofsociety.Thisassertion, however,
isproblematicbecausehomosexualityisnotasinglephe
nomenon, andtheadventofhomosexually identified
http:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2d
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
44/55
28
personsisrecent.Indeed,thehomosexualpersonisso
recent and diffuse as to make a sexual orientation
basedclass essentiallyundefinable.Amongthe little
that is known about that diffuse class, however, is
that sciencecanneitherstate that homosexuality is
innate, nor that it is immutable, nor that it is ashealthyasheterosexuality.
8
Therealityisthattheemergenceofhomosexual
ityasabasisforaclassisaparticularlynovelphe
nomenonandsocietaltreatmentofthatnewclassis
being handled effectively in the democratic process.
Unnecessarycourtactioncouldhaveunforeseencon
sequences,bothforsocietyatlargeandmembersofa
homosexual class. The Supreme Court has always
beenloathtoannouncenewfundamentalrightsandnewsuspectclasses,preciselybecausedoingsointer
feres with the legislative prerogative. Announcing
sexual orientation as a new protected class, when
suchapurportedclassisneitherdiscrete,norimmu
table,norpoliticallypowerless, would evisceratethe
limiting principles to the creation of new suspect
classes. This in turn would lead to separation of
powersandfederalismconcerns:curtailingtheability
of the legislativebranchtodrawlines where itsees
8See Footnote 3; see also Theo Sandfort, et al., Same-sex
Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders,58ArchivesofGen.Psychiatry85,89,Table2(Jan.2001)(notingmentalhealthdisparities between homosexualand heterosexual populations regardlessofthedegreeofsocietalacceptance);CatholicChurch,Catechism of the Catholic Church§2357(2012)(acknowledgingthelackofscientificunderstandingofhomosexuality).
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
45/55
29
fit,andinterferingwiththeabilityofstatestogovern
themselvesintheirpropersovereigncapacities.
These unforeseen consequences would not only
apply to society at large, but also to members of a
homosexual class. Just as the elevation of sex to a
suspectclassledtotheinvalidationofnumerouslaws
intended to protect women, the elevation of sexual
orientation to a suspect class could have negative
consequencesforlawsaimedatprotectinghomosex
uals.See Craig v. Boren,429U.S.190 (1976);Wein
berger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975); City of
Cleburne, supra,473U.S.at444; see alsoSuzanneB.
Goldberg, Equality Without Tiers, 77 S. Cal. L. Rev.
481,487-88(2004)(“Perhapsthemostpressingissue
raisedby theCourt’s equal protection jurisprudenceisthenowprimaryuseofsuspectclassificationanal
ysistoinvalidateorcallintoquestionmeasuresseek
ingtoremedypastracialdiscriminationorlimitthe
effects of racial bias in electoral politics.”). In this
situationthesupportersoftraditionalmarriage,and
opponentsofviewingsexualorientationasasuspect
class, suggest that itwouldbe mostappropriate for
theCourttoactwithcaution.
Constitutional guarantees of equal protection
generally limit only government action, not privateconduct. There are, however, at least three ways in
which changing the constitutional status of sexual
orientationwillharmreligiousliberty.First,achange
instatuswillincreasepressureongovernmententi
tiestoexcludereligiousgroupsfrompublicprograms
andopportunities.Second,governmentswithsexual
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
46/55
30
orientation antidiscrimination laws will more likely
arguethatforbiddingdiscriminationbasedonsexual
behaviorisasufficientlycompellinginteresttoover
ride the rights of religious individuals and entities.
Third, adding sexual orientation to the same legal
categoryasracewillendorsethemessagethattraditionalreligiousbeliefsaboutmarriageandthefamily
are – as a matter of constitutional law – akin to
racism, a form of condemnation that will result in
marginalizationandostracismofreligiousbelievers.
1. ExclusionfromthePublicSquare.
Raising sexual orientation to a suspect class
would effectively bar religious citizens from public
life.To determine whether the government may restrictFirstAmendmentlibertiesinordertoprotecta
certain class, courts look to whether this Courthas
recognizedthatclassassuspectforpurposesofequal
protectionjurisprudence.Ifaclasshasbeensorecog
nized, courtsaremuchmorewillingto findthatthe
government’s action is supported by a compelling
interest,andthusallowregulationstodiminishcon
stitutional liberties inorder to protect the class. By
contrast, if this Court does not recognize a classas
suspect,thenothercourtsaremuchlesslikelytofindgovernmentmotivestobecompelling.
AsJusticeThomashasobserved, thefactthata
certain class had “never been accorded any height
enedscrutinyundertheEqualProtectionClause”is
primeevidencethatalawprotectingthatclasslikely
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
47/55
31
does not protect a sufficiently compelling interest
to override religious liberty. Swanner v. Anchorage
Equal Rights Commission, 513U.S.979,981 (1994)
(Thomas,J.,dissentingfromdenialofcertiorari); see
also Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commission,
165 F.3d 692, 715 (9th Cir. 1999), rev’d on other grounds en banc,220F.3d1134(9thCir.2000)(per
mittinglessorstorefuseonreligiousgroundstolease
anapartment tonon-married cohabitants: “Thefact
that courts have not given unmarried couples any
special consideration under the Equal Protection
Clauseispotentcircumstantialevidencethatsociety
lacksacompellinggovernmentalinterestintheerad
icationofdiscriminationbaseduponmaritalstatus.”);
Attorney Gen. v. Desilets,636N.E.2d233,239(Mass.
1994) (“Because there is no constitutionally basedprohibition against discriminating on the basis of
marital status,maritalstatus discrimination isofa
lowerorderthanthosediscriminations”referredtoin
thestate constitution, i.e., “sex, race, color, creed or
nationalorigin.”).
Bycontrasttothemaritalstatusdiscrimination
at issue inSwannerand Thomas, fashioning sexual
orientationasanewsuspectclassakintoracemight
createsignificantsupportforallowingevennonneutralandnon-generally-applicablesexualorientationanti-
discriminationlawstoinfringeuponreligiousliberty.
See, e.g., Redgrave v. Boston Symphony Orchestra,
Inc., 855 F.2d 888, 921 (1st Cir. 1988) (Bownes, J.,
dissenting inpart) (“thestates and the federalgov
ernment have a compelling interest in eliminating
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
48/55
32
invidious discrimination by private persons on the
basisofraceandsex.[Thisvalidates]statutesaimed
ateradicatingsuchdiscrimination,eventhoughthey
have the incidental effect of abridging ... First
Amendmentrights.”)(citationsomitted).
Agoodexampleofhowthepublicsquarecouldbe
closedtobelieversisacasedealingwiththeexclusion
oftheBoyScoutsfromastateemployees’charitable
giving program. In that case a Connecticut govern
ment official unilaterally launched an investigation
into whether to remove the Boy Scouts from the
charitablegivingprogrambecausetheBoyScoutsdo
notpermithomosexualstobecomeBoyScoutleaders.
Boy Scouts of Am. v. Wyman, 335 F.3d 80 (2d Cir.
2003).ThestateofficialremovedtheBoyScoutsfromthe program, justifying the action as an effort to
avoidbeing“apartytodiscriminationinviolationof
Connecticut’s Gay Rights Law.” Id. at 85.After the
BoyScoutssued,theStateaffirmedthatitexcluded
theScouts“toensurethatstatefacilitiesnotbeused
in furtherance ofdiscrimination and thatStateem
ployees not be subjected to solicitation on behalf of
discriminating organizations.” Id. at 87. The court
ultimately ruled against the Boy Scouts, and one
member of the court expressed his opinion that the justification for the ruling should have simply been
thatConnecticut’scompellinginterestinenforcingits
antidiscrimination statute overrode the Boy Scouts’
rights. Id.at92n.5.Undoubtedly,theState’sinterest
wouldgainevengreaterauthoritywerethisCourtto
elevatesexualorientationtoasuspectclassification.
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
49/55
33
Thepotentialimpactofsuchachangeisstagger
ing.Onthe public level, religious organizationsand
individualsmaybefrozenoutofprofessionslikepsy
chologicalcounselingtowhichstatescontrollicensure
andethicalrequirements.Religiousadoptionandfos
ter care services, already targeted for exclusion incertain states, may be constitutionally compelled to
cease adoption and foster-care placement.Access to
public funding forfamilyservices conducted byreli
gious organizations could be slashed or barred. Al
readyexistingeffortstorevoketax-exemptstatusfor
traditionalreligiousgroupswouldintensify.Accessto
public facilities could becomeseverely restricted, in
flictingapotentiallyfatalblowtothemanyreligious
groups and churches that rent school facilities for
religiousservices.
2. EncroachmentonPrivateLiberty.
Raising sexual orientation to a suspect class
wouldalso impact religious citizens in theirprivate
practices.Asasetbackforbothreligiouslibertyand
federalism, states and municipalities that have en
acted religious liberty exemptions to their sexual
orientation antidiscrimination laws may face law-
suits seeking judicial rescission under the federalConstitution.See, e.g.,Feldblum, Moral Conflict and
Conflicting Liberties, supra, at 150-55 (religious
liberty exemptions should be extremely limited);
Mark Strasser, Public Policy, Same-Sex Marriage,
and Exemptions for Matters of Conscience, 12 Fla.
CoastalL.J. 135 (2010) (conscienceexemptions may
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
50/55
34
violateconstitutionalguarantees);JenniferAbodeely,
Thou Shall Not Discriminate: A Proposal for Limiting
First Amendment Defenses to Discrimination in
Public Accommodations, 12 Scholar 585 (2010) (dis
cussing ways to circumvent religious liberty de
fenses).
Transformingsexualorientationintoanewsus
pect classwouldnotonlysignificantlyincrease calls
forremovaloftheexemptions,itwouldprovideale
galbasis forchallengingthem. Recently,a same-sex
coupleandanagnosticcouplechallengedasunconsti
tutional a lease in which San Diego permitted the
BoyScoutstheuseofpublicland. Barnes-Wallace v.
City of San Diego,704F.3d1067(9thCir.2012).The
plaintiffs alleged that the leases violated the EqualProtectionClause“byendorsing,supporting,andpro
moting defendants’ discrimination based on sexual
orientation.” Id. at1084.Althoughultimatelyunsuc
cessful, the district court did suggest that the claim
was colorable. See Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of
Am., 275 F.Supp.2d 1259, 1381 (S.D. Cal. 2003). If
thisCourtgivesthegovernmentacompellinginterest
ineradicatingsexualorientationdiscrimination,lower
courts might conclude that the Constitution bans
accommodations of religion in the context of sexualorientation laws. Indeed, it would open the door to
discrimination claims for virtually any religious or
moral belief that preferences traditional sexual mo
ralityoverhomosexuality.
Thecarefullynegotiatedeffortsofstatesandtheir
citizens to strike a balance in the conflict between
http:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2d
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
51/55
35
religious liberty and sexual orientation protections
could be swept aside. If states and municipalities
were forced to removetheir religious libertyexemp
tions,religiousindividualsandcommunitieswouldbe
placed in very precarious positions while living out
their faiths. In recognizing sexual orientation as anew suspect class, the Court could unintentionally
destroy the compromises of State and local laws,
replacingeffortstowardmutualaccommodationwith
anall-or-nothingbattleworsethantheconflictsthat
ledtothecompromises.
A related harm from elevating sexual orienta-
tiontoasuspectclasswouldbe thediminishedpro
tection that Title VII wouldoffer to shield religious
believers from private discrimination. 42 U.S.C.§2000e. Employers will have less incentive to, and
perhaps even feel pressured not to, accommodate
expressions of conventional religious beliefs about
marriageandthefamily.Atleastoneappellatecourt
– under the rational-basis standard – has already
accepted the argument that it would be an “undue
burden”toaccommodatereligiousexpressionbecause
itwouldupsettheprotectedhomosexualclass. Peter
son v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 358 F.3d 599 (9th Cir.
2004) (accommodation of cubicle posters depictingscriptural passages on the morality of homosexual
behavior constituted an undue burden); see also
Gadling-Cole v. West Chester Univ., 868 F.Supp.2d
390, 397-98 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (permitting arguments
that accommodating the plaintiff’s religious refusal
http:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp:///reader/full/F.Supp.2d
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
52/55
36
topromotehomosexualityconstitutedanunduebur
den).
Similarly, employees who are required to fulfill
job functions that directly conflictwith their beliefs
willbemorelikelytofacesituationswheretheymust
either violate their faith or lose their livelihood.
Slater v. Douglas Cnty., 743F.Supp.2d 1188 (D. Or.
2010)(countyclerkfiredduetorequestthatshenot
be required to register domestic partners). These
conflicts can be world-shattering to the individuals
involved.
3. DefiningMillionsofReligiousBelievers
asBigots.
Inessence,PetitionersaskthisCourttodeclare
that thetraditionalreligiousbeliefsofmanyAmeri
cans–includingdevoutCatholics,Protestants,Mor
mons, Bahá’ís, Buddhists, Muslims, OrthodoxJews,
andSikhs–arecompletelywrongonasubjectofsuch
singularsocietalimportancethatitisafundamental
commitment enshrined in ournation’s Constitution.
Catechism, supra,at§2357;UnitedMethodistChurch,
The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist
Church, ¶304.3 (2012); The Southern Baptist Con
vention, Resolution on Homosexuality of the Southern
Baptist Convention (1988), available at http://www.
sbc.net/resolutions/610 (last visited Feb. 24, 2015);
TheBahá’íFaith, Lights of Guidance: A Bahá’í Refer
ence File,#1222;TorahDeclaration, Declaration On
The Torah Approach To Homosexuality, available at
http:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp://www/http:///reader/full/F.Supp.2dhttp://www/
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
53/55
37
http://www.torahdec.org (last visited Feb. 24, 2015);
Leviticus18:22(“Youshallnotliewithamaleaswith
awoman.”);DonLattin, Dalai Lama Speaks on Gay
Sex: He says its wrong for Buddhists but not for so
ciety,SFGate,June11,1997,available athttp://www.
sfgate.com/news/article/Dalai-Lama-Speaks-on-Gay-Sex-He-says-it-s-wrong-2836591.php; CBC News, World
Sikh group against gay marriage bill,March28,2005,
available at http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/world-sikh
group-against-gay-marriage-bill-1.536239 (last visit
edFeb.24,2015); Romans1:26-27.
Petitioners seek affirmationof their ownsexual
identities, and corresponding condemnation of con
trary religious identities in many ways, and one of
the mostpotent is inobtaining suspect class statusforsexualorientation,beausesuspectclassstatushas
historicallybeen reserved forcharacteristicsagainst
whichanydifferentiationcouldhavenobasisandwas
decisivelyevil.See Hernandez v. Robles, 855N.E.2d
1,8(N.Y.2006)(racismisa“revoltingmoralevil”that
the country wisely restricted). By elevating sexual
orientation to suspect class status, the Courtwould
placetraditionalreligiousbeliefsregardingmarriage
andthefamilyintothesamecategoryasracism.The
courtwouldalsoplacetensofmillionsoftraditionalreligiousbelieversintothesamecategoryasracistsif
they merely affirm the traditional faith that their
churches,synagogues,mosques,ortempleshavepub
liclysupportedsincetheinceptionoftheirfaiths.
Making sexual orientation into a suspect clas
sification, and invalidating state prohibitions on
http:///reader/full/http://www.torahdec.orghttp://www/http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/world-sikhhttp:///reader/full/http://www.torahdec.orghttp://www/http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/world-sikh
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
54/55
38
homosexual marriage, will impose harsh dilemmas
on religious believers, dilemmas that should not
beforceduponacountryfoundedasarefugeforthose
seekingreligiousliberty.Thefaithcommunitiesthat,
formillennia,havebeencommittedtothebeliefthat
sexualconductshouldoccuronly within themaritalunion of amanandawoman, andwhich represent
fiftypercentoftheAmericanpopulation,areunlikely
tochangethose beliefsorotherwise fade away.Pew
ResearchCenter,Section 3: Social & Political Issues:
Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage, Sept. 22,
2014, available at http://www.pewforum.org/2014/09 /
22/section-3-social-political-issues/(lastvisitedFeb.24,
2014)(“Thenumberofpeoplewhoviewhomosexualbe
haviorassinfulhas[risen]from45%in2013to50%in
the[2014].”).Thus,privilegingsexualorientationanditsrelatedconductasanewsuspectcategorywillonly
furtherdeepenandprovokewidespreadtensions.
Treatingreligionwithsuchhostilitywillalsonot
“succeedinkeepingreligiouscontroversyoutofpublic
life,giventhepoliticalrupturescausedbythealien
ation of segments of the religious community.” Mc
Daniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618, 641 n.25 (1978)
(Brennan, J., concurring in the judgment) (citation
omitted). The Courthas long recognizedthat establishing any official orthodoxy creates social and reli
giousstrife.West Va. Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319U.S.
624,642(1943)(“Ifthereisanyfixedstarinourconsti
tutional constellation, it is that no official, high or
petty,canprescribewhatshallbeorthodoxinpolitics,
nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.”).
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/09http://www.pewforum.org/2014/09
8/9/2019 14-556 Catholic Answers
55/55
39
Cf . Shima Baradaran-Robison, et al., Religious Mo
nopolies and the Commodification of Religion,32Pepp.
L.Rev.885,888,936-37(2005)(state-sanctionedortho
doxy can embolden thedominant society topersecute
thosewho hold disfavored views). Establishment of a
newgovernmentorthodoxywouldbeparticularlyinappropriatehere,whereitwouldmakepoliticalheretics
outoffaithfulreligiouscitizensandspawnprofoundly
corrosiveconflictsbetweenchurchandstate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
ThejudgmentoftheSixthCircuitshouldbeup
held and this Court should continue to allow mar
riagetobedefinedandregulatedbytheStates.
Respectfullysubmitted,
CHARLESS.LIM ANDRICounsel of Record
P AULM.JONNAJEFFREY M.TRISSELLFREEDOMOF
CONSCIENCEDEFENSEFUNDP.O.Box9520RanchoSantaFe,CA92067
(858)[email protected] for Amicus Curiae
Catholic Answers
April2,2015
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]