~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Same-Sex Marriage Tabled in Maryland
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To the surprise of most observers--both supporters and opponents--the bill in the Maryland legislature to redefine marriage did not make it through the House of Delegates after it was approved by the state Senate.  On March 11th, fearing defeat, backers of the bill returned it to committee rather than putting it to a vote. 

One reason the bill ran into unexpectedly fierce resistance in the House:  it had very weak religious freedom protections, including little protection for faith-based service organizations that are committed to marriage as a faithful union of one man and one woman.  A group of constitutional law experts had pointed out the problem, but got little hearing from the bill's supporters.  And yet, as Rev. Derek McCoy of the Maryland Family Alliance says, the pastors of many megachurches administer a wide range of faith-based services and programs, and the practices of these religious entities would be in trouble if marriage was redefined by the legislature. And, of course, there also hundreds of non-church related faith-based service organizations that would be affected.

In both the Maryland House and Senate amendments were offered specifically to protect faith-based adoption agencies that have a policy of sending children to mother-father families.  Proponents of marriage redefinition refused. 

Yet the agencies aren't out of danger even though the marriage redefinition bill was set aside for this legislative year.  Same-sex marriage advocates claimed that, because Maryland has a ban on sexual-orientation discrimination, it is already illegal for any adoption agency not to serve same-sex couples.  Of course, because the marriage redefinition bill was not adopted, still in Maryland "same-sex couples" are not the same as married couples.  But the activists may nevertheless target faith-based agencies that serve married families . . . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is a heart-breaking choice when a faith-based organization is confronted by a law, regulation, or court decision demanding that it abandon some faith-based practice as a condition of getting government funds or even just a license to operate.  If it bends to the demand in order to get the funds or the license, it can continue to serve, but no longer in a way faithful to its religious convictions.  That's a religious loss and the services will also change. Or it can stick to its convictions, losing the funds or being shut out of an area of service--remaining faithful but cutting back on services. 

Or, perhaps it should go to court.  That's the last thing service organizations want to do.  And yet quietly giving in--either abandoning the faith or giving up the license or the funds--is not a way to preserve flourishing faith-based services.  When Caesar makes unreasonable demands of faith-based organizations, then it may be time to challenge those demands, forcing Caesar to reconsider the justice of what it is demanding.

Protecting Faith-Based Counselors
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michigan's Attorney General has gone to bat for Julea Ward, a Christian counseling student who was ejected from the counseling program at Eastern Michigan University because, while she was willing to counsel anyone needing her help, she asked to refer to another counselor a client who desired help to improve his same-sex relationship.  EMU, other Michigan public universities, the American Counseling Association, and others claim that they are intent only on upholding the ethical requirement that every counselor must serve clients without imposing his or her own biases.

But Attorney General Bill Schuette's brief to the court says the facts of the case point instead to a refusal by the university and its counseling program to respect the religious convictions of the student.  As the brief notes, the counseling profession's code of ethics, and textbooks used in the university's counseling program, not only permit but require referrals when a counselor believes it would be better for the client to be served by someone else. 

If people of faith are driven out of the professions, or driven out of the programs of study required to belong to those professions, then faith-based service organizations also will suffer, for it is often a condition of their own operations that they have on staff licensed professionals. 

Protecting the religious freedom of faith-based organizations requires protecting the religious freedom of professionals.  Julea Ward's case should concern faith-based organizations and religious professionals far beyond the counseling profession itself. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Recent weeks and years have brought multiple distressing stories of secularizing laws, regulations, and court decisions imposed on faith-based service organizations in our sister Anglo-Saxon countries: Canada, Australia, the UK, and New Zealand.  So a few recent contrary news items are worth noting:

UK: 
The Equality and Human Rights Commission, in the news for weighing in recently against Christian couple Eunice and Owen Johns, who sought approval to do additional foster care, has publicly apologized for including in its legal documents in the case a remark that Christian moral views are like an "infection" that could harm children.  The Commission also stated that, contrary to press accounts, it did not believe that "rights in relation to sexual orientation 'take precedence' over religious rights."  Of course, actions speak louder than words, so there is reason to doubt the sincerity of this explanation.  For more, see "Equality Commission sorry for Christian 'infection' jibe."

The same Equality and Human Rights Commission reportedly will be investigating "gay-only" bed and breakfast establishments for "potentially discriminatory policies towards heterosexual couples."  This follows, and apparently is intended to balance, its previous attack on Christian facilities.  Perhaps the design of the Equality Law itself needs a deep examination.  For more, see "Gay-only B&Bs probed by equality commission."

In an early-March BBC show, gay historian and self-identified atheist David Starkey spoke up against the government's equality crusade.  Starkey said, "It seems to me that what we are doing is producing a tyrannous new morality that is every bit as oppressive as the old."  In the case of the Christian bed and breakfast facility that was fined because of its policy of restricting double beds to married couples, Starkey said the solution was not to fine the facility or ban its practices but rather to have this small, privately run establishment simply post a public notice about its policies.  For more, see "Video:  Gay historian David Starkey defends Christians." 

Australia:
In Victoria state, the Liberal/National Coalition government that replaced the Labor government last November has promised to lift far-reaching "anti-discrimination" restrictions that were scheduled to go into effect this summer, on the grounds that the new restrictions did not adequately safeguard the religiously shaped practices of faith-based organizations.  The Attorney General says, "The 2010 legislation is a far-reaching attack on the freedom of faith-based organisations and freedom of religion and belief.  The amendments will restore tolerance and a sense of the fair go.  Faith-based organisations and political organisations should be free to engage staff that uphold their values."  For more, see "Religious groups to regain bias rights."

Take Note
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Archbishop Charles Chaput on Religious Freedom:
"Note what James Madison said in his 'Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments' in 1785: '[Man's duty of honoring God] is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation to the claims of civil society. Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the universe.'

"That is why religious freedom is humanity's first and most important freedom. Our first governor is God, our Creator, the Governor of the universe. We are created for a religious purpose. We have a religious destiny. Our right to pursue this destiny precedes the state. Any attempt to suppress our right to worship, preach, teach, practice, organize and peacefully engage society because of our belief in God is an attack not only on the cornerstone of human dignity, but also on the identity of the American experiment."

Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, "Subject to the Governor of the Universe:  The American Experience and Global Religious Liberty," keynote speech at the conference on "Religion in American Politics and Society:  A Model for Other Countries?" Berkley Center, Georgetown University, March 1, 2011.

Robert Vischer on the Need for Conscience Protections for Professionals:
"The fact that the state cannot forbid the provision of a particular good or service is taken [by contemporary progressives] to mean that every good or service must be provided by all licensed providers. In the process, the moral convictions of providers are rendered irrelevant. The individual consumer does not just coexist with the morally divergent views of the provider; the individual, backed up by state power, trumps the provider. [T]he enshrinement of universal access as a precondition for participating in the marketplace imposes significant costs on other important public values--the liberty of conscience most glaringly.  . . .

"[Some claim that persons lose their right to object as soon as they accept a professional license to practice.]  The problem with this argument is that it fundamentally rewrites the history and purpose of professional licensing, which has traditionally been aimed at ensuring competence, not on co-opting providers into serving state interests at the expense of their own moral agency. Lawyers, for example, are free to decline representations that they find morally repugnant, and the bar's licensing inquiry focuses on competence and character, but not on the lawyer's willingness to take on whoever walks into his office. We want professionals to be morally engaged with the work they do. As the twentieth century made all too clear, we take on significant risks when we encourage (much less require) the professional's role to define the professional's conscience."

Robert K. Vischer, "The Progressive Case for Conscience Protection," Public Discourse:  Ethics, Law and the Common Good, March 9, 2011.

Worth Reading ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David T. Koyzis, "Illuminating Civil Society," Comment (Cardus), Feb. 11, 2011, review of Jonathan Chaplin, Herman Dooyeweerd:  Christian Philosopher of State and Civil Society (Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 2011). 

Jeanne Heffernan Schindler, ed., Christianity and Civil Society:  Catholic and Neo-Calvinist Perspectives (Lexington Books, 2008).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~