The Chief Justice skinks with the ship

The Supreme Court today held that gay marriage is a fundamental right that states cannot deny. Sadly, the Chief Justice and three other justices decided to sink with the Christian Right ship rather than affirm America's core value of equality.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, (Sup. Ct., June 26, 2015) and was joined by Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Helen Kagan. Kennedy gave four reasons why gay marriage was a fundamental right (Slip Opinion, pp. 12-17). The bottom line is that the majority held that the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution "[do] not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex." (P. 27)

The dissenters were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito -- all conservative Roman Catholics.

This reminds me of the 1960 presidential election in which some voters worried that if John F. Kennedy were elected president, he would take orders from the Pope. Then senator, Kennedy responded to this concern in an address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12, 1960:

 I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

The Chief Justice, Scalia, Thomas and Alito obviously cannot say the same--for they voted to deny gays the right to marry just as the Catholic Church would want them to.

The Chief Justice sadly tells those who support the decision: "Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it." (P. 29)
This ridiculous statement is consistent with a justice who lacks fidelity to the Constitution, specifically its due process and equal protection clauses.

Like the seemingly unsinkable Titanic, the Christian Right has sunk.

As a final comment, Justice Alito worries that those who oppose gay marriage will be called bigots. He should be worried. Quite frankly, they are bigots because there is no rational basis for their discriminatory belief. Their religion is no excuse. But they are free to be wrong.

Judge ignores reality in IGWT motto case

U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer, Jr. handed down an incredibly Christian Right themed decision in a New York case challenging the inscription of "In God We Trust" on our currency and coins.

In dismissing Newdow v. United States (N.D. N.Y., September 9, 2013), Judge Baer noted that the Supreme Court and four circuit courts have "assumed the motto's secular purpose and effect." And that's the problem.

First, the Supreme Court has never held on the merits that the "In God We Trust" on our currency or coins (or "under God" in the Pledge) is constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Second, the cases that Judge Baer cites in support of his opinion employ historical revisionism. The IGWT motto (and "under God" in the Pledge") legislation was promoted in the 1950s (during the Second Red Scare) by the Christian Right to put government's imprimatur of god-belief through the use of our motto (and the Pledge of Allegiance).

Judge Baer's decision references typical (and not so typical) secular purposes of "the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, expressing confidence in the future, and encouraging the recognition of what is worthy of appreciation in society." (Citing Justice O'Conner's concurring opinion in Lynch v. Donnelly.)

Make no mistake about it: these are all sham secular purposes. The IGWT motto has but one purpose -- it's a backdoor approach by the Christian Right to subvert our secular Constitution by turning our country into a Christian Nation. (American Christian fundamentalism has striking parallels to fundamentalist Islam of the Middle East.)

There are many truly secular ways of solemnizing our currency, such as, using the "E pluribus unum" ("Out of many, one") that is on the Seal of the United States.

Does IGWT express confidence in the future? This is too ridiculous a purpose to elaborate upon.

And what does IGWT recognize as "worthy of appreciation" -- but God (to the Christian Right)! Clearly, to a reasonable, objective observer, "In God We Trust" is totally a religious expression with no redeeming secular value. I would also note that more than twenty percent of Americans do not trust (or believe) in the Judeo-Christian god.

Third, Judge Baer also lists "ceremonial deism" as a reason for his holding. The term was coined in 1962 by Eugene Rostow, then dean of Yale Law School. Although used the Supreme Court since 1984 as a justification for exempting various religious acts by government from the prohibitions of the First Amendment, it is a legal fiction that has no rational basis in the Constitution. Indeed, there is not a single reference to "God" in the Constitution.

Accordingly, from the same set of facts as before the court in Newdow, it is clear to me that the legislation directing the inscription of "In God We Trust" on our currency had a singularly religious purpose and its principal or primary effect has been to advance Christianity. In addition, because we use currency and coins daily in our financial affairs, I would also argue that the inscription of IGWT on our currency and coins excessively entangles government in religion. (NOTE: The plaintiffs in Newdow did not make the latter argument.)

In my opinion, IGWT as an official motto and its inscription on our currency and coins violates all three prongs of the Lemon test and, therefore, its use should be declared by the courts as unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause.