With Weak Protections For Conscience, "Obergefell is Roe on Steroids"

National Catholic Register ^ | 6/30/15 | Joan Desmond

[markomalley]

Liberals and conservatives have compared the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision with Obergefell v. Hodges. Both are landmark rulings, in which the high court takes sides in a fractious national debate that was far from decided in the minds of many voters.

But Bill McGurn, the Wall Street Journal columnist, takes issue with that assessment, at least as it involves the likely impact of the court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage.

McGurn does not dispute the grave immorality of legal abortion. Rather he argues that the weak, ambiguous language on free-exercise protections in Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Obergefell will unleash unprecedented attacks on individuals, churches and institutions that resist the logic of "marriage equality."

Obergefell is Roe on steroids. Roe legalized a market for abortion for those who wanted them and those who provided them. It was qualified by conscience protections plus riders attached to federal legislation greatly limiting the use of taxpayer dollars to underwrite the practice. So Roe didn’t demand much of those on the other side—or on the sidelines.

Obergefell is another thing altogether. In one of the great flimflams of American life, it is a prescription for endless litigation smuggled in under libertarian clothing. This began with the opening question put to all those who held the classic view of marriage: What can it possibly matter to you, they were asked, if two men or two women who love each other call their relationship marriage?

We learned that it matters a great deal.....

It matters to Catholic Charities, which in several states has been forced out of the adoption business either because the charity does not offer same-sex spousal benefits or declines to place children for adoption with same-sex couples.

[Salvation]

It’s too bad we can’t post the entire article for the Catholic Register.

**[Update: A legal source just contacted me to corract part of McGurn’s argument.
“McGurn is not quite right: these protections weren’t built in to the decision; they had to be passed by Congress and legislatures,” she told me. This lawyer also noted that “Christian lawyer googlegroups post-Obergefell talking about what this all means, including one discussion about the semantic and practical differences between ‘conscience’ protection vs. ‘protecting religious freedom’ vs. the focus-grouped phrase ‘freedom to believe.’ I pointed out that ‘freedom to believe’ scores highest with focus groups precisely because it avoids the issue, which is freedom to act or not act. The opposite of ‘freedom to believe’ is thought crimes. But expect to hear a lot about ‘free to believe’ in the upcoming days,’] weeks, and months.]**

[Does so]

Obergefell is Roe on steroids.

The German root "Obergefallen", in English, means "super fallen one": a strange harbinger of outcome.