https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/sexual-intelligence/202010/pope-francis-the-supreme-court
Marty Klein Ph.D.
Pope Francis for the Supreme Court?
The Pope speaks for sexual rights more than
the Supreme Court nominee
Posted Oct 25, 2020
You know the world is upside-down
when the Pope is the spokesperson for progressive sexual politics. And
that’s where we are today.
In
the same mind-boggling week, Pope Francis publicly endorsed legal protections
for same-gender couples,
while presumptive Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett refused to honor Obergefell
v. Hodges, the Court’s 2015 decision affirming same-sex couples’ right to
marry.
In
last week’s Senate confirmation “hearing,” Barrett also refused to say whether Lawrence v.
Texas, decriminalizing same-gender sex in 2003, was correctly decided.
Indeed, she has sidestepped all questions about preserving LGBT non-discrimination protections.
The
day after Election Day, the Court will hear a very important case which
addresses a central conflict in American society: between religious rights and
anti-discrimination laws.
Fulton v. City
of Philadelphia has been brought
by Catholic Social Services. Philadelphia’s city officials ended CSS’s contract
to provide foster care services because the agency will not accept applications
from married same-sex couples.
The
Supreme Court accepted the case after an appeals court ruled in favor of the
city and its anti-discrimination law.
When do religious organizations deserve exemptions from anti-discrimination
laws that the groups say would cause them to violate deeply held beliefs, such
as what constitutes a marriage, or a
“moral” home environment? The Court may choose this case as its chance to issue
a historic ruling that expands the rights of religious groups at the expense of
protecting the fundamental rights of other groups.
While
America is far from perfect, the last half-century has seen an increasing
number of its citizens guaranteed the rights enjoyed by the majority.
It
is now illegal, for example, to deny contraception to single people; marriage
to mixed race couples; jobs to people in wheelchairs; equal pay to pregnant women;
classroom resources to autistic children;
and commercial services to black people.
Every
one of these now-illegal behaviors used to be routine and legal.
Unfortunately,
while America has marched toward increasing legal equality based on outlawing
more and more forms of discrimination, it has also marched to a relentless
expansion of rights based on claims of “religious freedom.” In particular,
individuals and organizations—with the encouragement of major political figures
and deep-pocket religious groups—are claiming exemption from an ever- expanding
range of antidiscrimination laws.
These
demands to be excluded from various laws are supposedly guaranteed by our
beloved First Amendment.
In
what is called the Establishment Clause, the First Amendment prohibits the
government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.”
This
was a radical idea in the 18th century, when one of the perks of every monarch
was deciding which would be the state religion (i.e., theirs)—meaning that
following any other religion was treason, punishable by death.
The
Establishment Clause not only forbids our government from establishing an
official religion (as in Tudor England or modern India), it also prohibits
government actions that unduly favor one religion over another (as in Turkey).
And it prohibits our government from preferring religion over non-religion (as
in Austria).
So
in America, we are free to believe what we like. Simple. Elegant. Life-
affirming.
The
problem comes when people decide that in order to follow their religious
beliefs, they have to violate the legal rights of their fellow Americans. Does
the Establishment Clause give “believers” more rights than everyone else?
This
idea is particularly repulsive since government itself defines “religion”—as
opposed to, say cult, hallucination,
or mental illness. So for example, our government does not recognize the right
of XYZ hypothetical religion’s followers to marry schoolchildren. But it does
recognize the right of several other religion’s followers to circumcise babies
(Jewish, Muslim) and withhold medical care from children (Christian Scientist,
Jehovah’s Witness).
READ MORE: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/sexual-intelligence/202010/pope-francis-the-supreme-court
