Catholic Answers Amicus Brief

8/9/2019 Catholic Answers Amicus Brief

1/55

Nos. 14-556, 14-562, 14-571, 14-574================================================================

In The

Supreme ourt of the United States

--------------------------------- ---------------------------------

JAMES OBERGEFELL, et al., Petitioners,

v.RICHARD HODGES, DIRECTOR,

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, et al., Respondents.

--------------------------------- ---------------------------------

VALERIA TANCO, et al., Petitioners,

v.BILL HASLAM, GOVERNOR OF TN, et al.,

Respondents.--------------------------------- ---------------------------------

APRIL DEBOER, et al., Petitioners,

v.RICK SNYDER, GOVERNOR OF MI, et al.,

Respondents.--------------------------------- ---------------------------------

GREGORY BOURKE, et al., Petitioners,

v.STEVE BESHEAR, GOVERNOR OF KY, et al.,

Respondents.--------------------------------- ---------------------------------

On Writs Of Certiorari To The United StatesCourt of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit--------------------------------- ---------------------------------

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF CATHOLIC ANSWERS IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

--------------------------------- ---------------------------------

CHARLES S. LIM ANDRICounsel of Record

P AUL M. JONNAJEFFREY M. TRISSELLFREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE DEFENSE FUNDP.O. Box 9520Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067(858) [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae

Catholic Answers April 2, 2015================================================================

COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM

mailto:[email protected]:///reader/full/WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COMmailto:[email protected]:///reader/full/WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM


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.


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?


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


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


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


7/55

vi


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


8/55

vii


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


9/55

viii


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


10/55

ix


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/


11/55

x


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


12/55

xi


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/


13/55

xii


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


14/55

xiii


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


15/55

xiv


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/


16/55

xv


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


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.


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


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


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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------


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


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).


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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



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;


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


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.



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


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/


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


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/


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.


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



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).


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


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


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


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.


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


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



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



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/


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


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.pew

Documents

Catholic Answers Amicus Brief