• Turns Out Even Jimmy Carter Is Concerned About The All-Out Assault On Religious Liberty

    After the Supreme Court ruled in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage in every state in the union, the peeps of concern that the feds would force churches to perform gay marriages grew into roars.

    To be clear, it was Justice Samuel Alito who asked the Obama Administration’s top lawyer Solicitor General Donald Verrilli if a decision expanding the definition of marriage would require religious colleges to offer housing to same-sex couples. “I don’t deny this is going to be an issue,” Verrilli said in response.

    Justice Kennedy, who wrote the court’s majority opinion, didn’t explicitly write that places of worship and individual institutions of faith must always be protected by the First Amendment not to participate in same-sex ceremonies and or other related activities that they deem to violate their conscience.

    So it was surprising as well as refreshing today to hear Jimmy Carter, of all people, make that affirmation.

    After explaining that he thinks that “everybody should have a right to get married regardless of their sex,” former President Carter said that he “wouldn’t be in favor of the government being able to force a local church congregation to perform gay marriages if they didn’t want to.”

    That’s Jimmy freakin’ Carter, one of the most cockeyed liberals in America, saying what most liberals know to be truly fair but won’t admit in public.

    What is the world coming to when Chief Justice John Roberts (who you can read below) and Jimmy Carter are both advocating for the First Amendment rights of faithful Americans:

    Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1.

    The majority’s decision imposing same sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.

    Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.

    Jerome Hudson

    Managing Editor

    Jerome Hudson has written for numerous national outlets, including The Hill, National Review, and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and was recognized as one of Florida’s emerging stars, having been included in the list “25 Under 30: Florida’s Rising Young Political Class.” Hudson is a Savannah, Ga. native who currently resides in Florida.

    Trending Now on Daily Surge

    Send this to a friend