DOCSLIB.ORG

Religious Freedom for Churches the U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Religious Freedom for Churches the U.S Protecting how we practice our faith BRUCE HAUSKNECHT, ESQ Paying a High Price 2 PAYING A HIGH PRICE Religious Freedom for Churches The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. today for religious freedom in the U.S. (and not just and Religious Organizations 3 Hodges,1 handed down on June 26, 2015, made in regard to marriage): same-sex marriage the law of the land and created Religious Freedom a “new” set of constitutional rights. By a vote of 5-4, ■ Aaron and Melissa Klein3 are a Christian in the Military 5 the millennia-old, one-man, one-woman definition couple from Gresham, Oregon, who owned of marriage was tossed aside in favor of sexual a bakery. They were fined $135,000 by the Religious Freedom liberty—a decision that will have profound effects state for failing to bake a cake for a same-sex in Public Schools 7 on American life and the freedoms we often take wedding, and have been forced to close their for granted. bakery due to the controversy. Religious Freedom in the Workplace 10 In 2016, the Obergefell impact spread to the issue of “gender identity” as the U.S. Department of Education issued an edict to the nation's schools, Religious Freedom in Government saying that boys who claim to “identify” as girls (and and the Public Square 11 vice versa) can choose to use the restrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities of the opposite sex. What Can I Do to Common sense, public safety, and the orthodox Protect Religious Freedom? 13 Christian view2 that “male and female He created them” have been rejected in the government push for the new sexual orthodoxy made possible by 4 ■ Barronelle Stutzman, a florist in the Obergefell ruling. Although the Department Washington State, and another baker in of Education edict was revoked by the Trump Denver, Colorado, named Jack Phillips,5 Administration in 2017, activists nevertheless have been found guilty of “discrimination” continue to push this policy through local school for declining, on conscience grounds, to administrators, as well as through the courts. provide services that would celebrate a same-sex ceremony. Even before the Obergefell decision, government hostility toward Christianity was evident due to the ■ Andrew Cash,6 an aspiring counselor, was rise of homosexual activism. Consider these recent expelled from Missouri State University in cases, which paint a picture of serious concern 2014 for expressing his opinion in a class Religious Freedom 2 presentation that because of his religious But you need to know what those rights are! beliefs, he would refer a homosexual couple to another counselor to deal with relationship To help you, Focus on the Family created this issues, although he would be willing to Thriving Values Religious Freedom resource to counsel homosexuals individually. help you better understand and respond to threats in five key areas of culture: ■ Wes Modder 7 was a decorated military chaplain with a 19-year service record 1. churches and religious organizations who faced a Navy discharge for offering his biblical views on sex and marriage in 2. the military private counseling sessions. After months of legal wrangling, the Navy exonerated8 3. public schools Modder, and he was able to retire in 4. the workplace good standing. 5. government and the public square Religious freedom rights are in jeopardy10—and the 2015 Obergefell ruling RELIGIOUS FREEDOM will only make things more difficult for people of faith, FOR CHURCHES their businesses and their organizations. Similar scenarios AND RELIGIOUS will increase in frequency, and ORGANIZATIONS new challenges to religious freedom will arise. However, The U.S. was founded on religious liberty, so you it’s not all bad news. might assume churches and religious organizations are the most protected of any of this country’s People of faith still have institutions, and their rights are easiest to explain. rights; state legislatures are regularly adding new It’s more complicated than that, however, due to the protections;11 and religious-freedom lawyers cumulative effect of more than 200 years of court and organizations stand ready and willing to cases, legislation and the ever-increasing size and intervene, so as to safeguard those rights. encroachment of government into our daily lives. Religious Freedom 3 While specific laws exist to protect the rights follow God’s design for marriage may find their of churches and religious organizations, legal tax-exempt status14 in jeopardy. This was a topic challenges remain. of discussion during the Obergefell oral arguments before the Supreme Court. SAME-SEX WEDDINGS—MINISTERS A couple of states have gone so far as to suggest AND CHURCH FACILITIES that certain church functions that are “open to the Does the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. public” must comply with SOGI laws. This creates Hodges mean ministers will have to perform same- opportunities for churches to be targeted and sued sex wedding ceremonies and churches will have to for “discrimination” by LGBT activists. rent out facilities for such weddings? Alliance Defending Freedom15 and Christian Church pastors will probably not be at personal Legal Society16 each has a helpful resource risk for the foreseeable future, although recent for churches concerned about these issues. history suggests ministers who operate “for- profit”12 wedding chapels may have a harder time resisting requests to officiate GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS same-sex ceremonies. Due to the In the important 2017 Trinity Lutheran17 “All of which, I assume is little increasing prevalence of “sexual decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a comfort to the Huguenins, who orientation/gender identity” (SOGI) state government cannot deny the benefits of a now are compelled by law to nondiscrimination laws13 churches generally available public program or benefit to compromise the very religious will need to pay attention to their a church—simply because it is a church. This beliefs that inspire their lives. facility use policies. For example, principle would also apply favorably to other Though the rule of law requires it, churches that allow non-members religious organizations, such as religious schools the result is sobering.… In short, to rent church facilities may be and charities. I would say to the Huguenins, open to demands from same-sex with the utmost respect: It is couples who want to hold a wedding the price of citizenship.” reception or demands from gay HIRING AND EMPLOYMENT ISSUES —Justice Bosson and lesbian groups for access, Churches and religious organizations have the right, New Mexico state supreme court followed by lawsuits if they are under Title VII18 of the U.S. Code and similar state the Elane Photography case 9 refused. At some point, churches laws, to give employment preference to members and organizations that continue to of their own religion. There’s also the right to select Religious Freedom 4 ministers and other religious leaders free from any In a previous case, religiously owned, for-profit government interference via typical employment laws. companies won an important victory against the U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate in 2014, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. ZONING LAWS (See “Religious Freedom in Government and Churches19 have the right to be treated similarly the Public Square,” pp.11-13.) to other community groups in situations like rental of government buildings20 or zoning and land-use21 issues. There is a history of local OTHER PROTECTIONS governments discriminating against churches— Churches and religious organizations have either because of hostility to religion, or the fear of additional protections from government laws that losing tax revenue (churches are typically exempt affect their free exercise of religion under federal23 from state and local sales taxes). and state versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).24 Under these RFRA statutes, courts try to balance any burdens placed OBAMACARE’S ABORTION on religion with the compelling interest of the DRUG MANDATE government behind its law or action. Some states The Little Sisters of the Poor22 is a congregation are actively protecting25 churches and pastors of Catholic sisters who run homes for the poor and from the effects of the Obergefell same-sex elderly of every race and denomination. The marriage decision by forbidding government from sisters face huge government fines for penalizing them for holding fast to God’s design refusing to include contraception and for marriage and sexuality. possible abortion-causing drugs in their employee health-care plan, as part of the Affordable Care Act (also called “ObamaCare”). Their RELIGIOUS FREEDOM challenge has reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ordered IN THE MILITARY the parties in May 2016 to go back Court cases involving military personnel and to the negotiating table and reach a religious freedom are often outside of the public compromise acceptable to both sides. eye because the military is covered primarily by its Religious Freedom 5 own internal justice system, policies Air Force Senior Master Sergeant Phillip Monk,27 and procedures. for example, found himself under the command of a lesbian officer, who demanded that Monk, a But since the repeal of “Don’t Christian, affirm his support for same-sex Ask, Don’t Tell,”26 a policy that marriage, which he declined to do. prohibited openly practicing She relieved him of his duties and homosexuals from serving in he was investigated for possible the military, as well as the U.S. court-martial. In a surprise ending Supreme Court’s rulings in to this story, Monk was later 2013 (striking down federal law honored by the Air Force for defining marriage) and 2015 his service, rather than punished (striking down every remaining for his politically incorrect views one-man, one-woman state on marriage. marriage law in the nation), military life and religious freedom Nevertheless, this story is disturbing continue to clash in a big way.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Amicus Briefs in This Case
    NO. 16-111 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD., ET. AL., Petitioners, v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, ET. AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE 33 FAMILY POLICY ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS DAVID FRENCH Counsel of record Senior Fellow NATIONAL REVIEW INSTITUTE 215 Lexington Avenue 11th Floor New York, New York 10016 (931) 446-7572 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether applying Colorado’s public- accommodation law to compel artists to create expression that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED ......................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................... iii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ............................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................... 2 ARGUMENT .............................................................. 6 I. If Freedom of Conscience Can Survive the World’s Worst War, It Should Survive the Sexual Revolution. ............................................... 6 II. Creative Professionals and Corporations Consistently Exercise Their Rights under Barnette to Promote and Disassociate from Specific Values and Messages. .......................... 13 III. To Undermine Barnette Is To Cruelly Impoverish the Marketplace of Ideas. .............. 21 CONCLUSION ......................................................... 25 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., 370 P.3d 272 (Colo. App. 2015) .................... 17-18 Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) .................................. 12, 26 West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) .................................... passim Other Authorities: Accessories: 42mm Pride Edition Woven Nylon, Apple, https://www.apple.com/ca/shop/ product/MQ4G2AM/A/42mm-pride-edition- woven-nylon (last visited Sept.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Message to the 117Th Congress: Don't Draft Our Daughters
    Special Message to the 117th Congress: Don’t Draft Our Daughters August 31, 2021 Dear Senators and Representatives, We write to you united in serious concern about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2022 which the Senate Armed Services Committee approved on July 21. The legislation is unacceptable because it would amend the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA) to require young women to register with Selective Service for a possible future draft. Sen. Jack Reed’s deceptively simple language – reportedly to change the MSSA words “male citizens” to “all Americans” – is unnecessary, unwise, and, in our view, outrageous. Imposition of Selective Service obligations, including a possible future draft of our daughters, sisters, and nieces, would not only hurt women, it would compromise our military’s essential function during a time of catastrophic national emergency. A monumental and consequential reversal such as this should not be approved behind closed doors, and the full Senate and House should not rubber-stamp “Draft Our Daughters” language in the NDAA. The only acceptable option is to strike the Reed amendment and seriously, thoroughly, and responsibly consider what the Selective Service law really means. This is a matter of national security – not “women’s rights,” “men’s rights,” or civilian volunteer service. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution assigns to Congress the authority to establish and support the armed forces and to ensure that they are prepared to secure our nation and defend our freedom. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the purpose of a draft is not to fill various non- combat billets, it is to quickly provide qualified replacements for combat casualties.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    No. 19-123 In the Supreme Court of the United States SHARONELL FULTON, et al., Petitioners, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PA., et al., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA, CENTER FOR ARIZONA POLICY, THE DELEWARE FAMILY POLICY COUNCIL, THE FAMILY FOUNDATION, HAWAII FAMILY FORUM, THE ILLINOIS FAMILY INSTITUTE, NEBRASKA FAMILY ALLIANCE, CORNERSTONE POLICY RESEARCH, WISCONSIN FAMILY ACTION, NATIONAL LEGAL FOUNDATION, AND PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE supporting Petitioner Steven W.Fitschen Frederick W. Claybrook, Jr. James A. Davids Counsel of Record The National Legal Claybrook LLC Foundation 700 Sixth St., NW, Ste. 430 524 Johnstown Road Washington, D.C. 20001 Chesapeake, Va. 23322 (202) 250-3833 [email protected] David A. Bruce 205 Vierling Dr. Silver Spring, Md. 20904 Counsel for Amici Curiae i TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities ................................................... iii Statements of Interests .............................................. 1 Summary of the Argument ......................................... 5 Argument .................................................................... 7 I. Context Matters: Some Discrimination Is Permissible and Even Constitutionally Protected. .......................................................... 7 II. When Balancing the Interests, This Court Has Traditionally Looked to Their Relative Weight and How Those Involved Are Affected. .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Themoneybehindthe 2 0 0 4
    T H E M O N E Y B E H I N D T H E 2 0 0 4 M A R R I A G E A M E N D M E N T S By S U E O ’ C O N N E L L J A N . 2 7 , 2 0 0 6 This publication was made possible by grants from: The JEHT Foundation, Democratizing the Electoral Process Carnegie Corporation of New York, Strengthening U.S. Democracy Program Ford Foundation, Program on Governance and Civil Society Joyce Foundation, Program on Money and Politics Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Program on Democratic Practice The statements made and the views expressed are solely the responsibility of the Institute. 833 NORTH LAST CHANCE GULCH, SECOND FLOOR • HELENA, MT • 59601 PHONE 406-449-2480 • FAX 406-457-2091 • E-MAIL [email protected] www.followthemoney.org T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Overview .................................................................................................3 Methodology ................................................................................5 A Rush to Amend.....................................................................................6 A Network Forms.....................................................................................8 About the Arlington Group...........................................................9 The Forces Against ................................................................................ 13 Top Contributors Across the 13 States.................................................... 16 Where the Money Went ......................................................................... 19 Looking down the Road ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • THIRD BRANCH CONFERENCE______Washington, D.C
    THIRD BRANCH CONFERENCE_____________ Washington, D.C. June 2, 2009 The Honorable Mitch McConnell The Honorable Jon Kyl The Honorable Jeff Sessions The Honorable John Cornyn The Honorable John Thune and copied to all Minority Senators. United States Senate Washington, DC Re: Debating the Supreme Court Nomination Dear Senators: Senator Sessions recently published a fine column offering his advice to the President on the qualities that should define a Supreme Court nominee. Senator Sessions respectfully explained what he expected of the President. Now that the President has made his nomination, it is up to the Senate to give the President “advice and consent.” With like respect, and as the petitioners for millions of Americans, we write to express what we expect of you as leaders of the Senate Minority on a matter of the greatest concern to us – the confirmation process of the President’s nominee to the Supreme Court. In fact, we expect the same of the Majority in mirrored fashion. We assume that Senators and staffs of the Committee on the Judiciary will do all that they can to illuminate the issues that under-gird a Supreme Court nomination. We hope that the time between nomination and hearings, and between hearings and a confirmation debate will be ample enough to alert the American people to the impact of the matter at hand, and comparable to previous nominations reviewed during times that Democrats controlled the Senate. We say this to point out that the effort from you that we request is not at all limited to the walls of the Senate Judiciary Committee or its work, or to issues of procedure and timing.
    [Show full text]
  • 16-1140 Amicus
    NO. 16-1140 In the Supreme Court of the United States NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FAMILY AND LIFE ADVOCATES, dba NIFLA, et al., Petitioners, v. XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General of California, et al., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE 41 FAMILY POLICY ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS DAVID F RENCH Counsel of Record Senior Fellow NATIONAL R EVIEW I NSTITUTE 19 West 44th Street Suite 1701 New York, New York 10036 (931) 446-7572 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae Becker Gallagher · Cincinnati, OH · Washington, D.C. · 800.890.5001 i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the disclosures required by the California Reproductive FACT Act violate the protections set forth in the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED.................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................. iii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ............... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.................. 2 ARGUMENT............................... 7 I. The State of California Is Conscripting Pro-Life Professionals Into its Pro-Choice Cause................................ 7 II. California Is Transforming Private Pro-Life Property Into Billboards for the Pro-Choice Cause............................... 12 III. California’s Intolerance Threatens to Exacerbate American Cultural Divide .... 14 CONCLUSION ............................ 17 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, (No. 16-11, Argued Dec. 5, 2017) ........ 2, 6, 16 National Institutes of Family and Life Advocates v. Harris, 839 F.3d 823 (9th Cir. 2016) .............. 3, 8 West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) .................. 5, 6, 12 Wooley v.
    [Show full text]
  • Exposing the Traditional Marriage Agenda Jessica Feinberg
    Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy Volume 7 | Issue 2 Article 3 Spring 2012 Exposing the Traditional Marriage Agenda Jessica Feinberg Recommended Citation Jessica Feinberg, Exposing the Traditional Marriage Agenda, 7 Nw. J. L. & Soc. Pol'y. 301 (2012). http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njlsp/vol7/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy by an authorized administrator of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Copyright 2012 by Northwestern University School of Law Volume 7 (Spring 2012) Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy Exposing the Traditional Marriage Agenda Jessica Feinberg* ABSTRACT The success of a social justice movement, especially with regard to issues upon which the public will be voting, depends in significant part on how the issues are defined or framed. Anti-same-sex marriage campaigns frequently urge voters to vote in favor of laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman in order to “protect traditional marriage.” Instead of framing the issue as a question of whether individuals of the same sex should be banned from marrying, anti-same-sex marriage campaigns often frame the issue as a question of whether traditional marriage should be protected from redefinition. This strategy has proven successful for anti-same-sex marriage campaigns. However, same-sex marriage opponents rarely have been challenged with regard to the meaning of “traditional marriage.” In exploring the history of marriage within the United States, it becomes clear that, contrary to the understanding of the term held by the general public, traditional marriage consists of much more than opposite-sex spouses.
    [Show full text]
  • The Honorable Charles Schumer the Honorable Mitch Mcconnell Senate Majority Leader Senate Minority Leader United States Senate United States Senate Washington, D.C
    The Honorable Charles Schumer The Honorable Mitch McConnell Senate Majority Leader Senate Minority Leader United States Senate United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Majority Leader Schumer and Minority Leader McConnell, We are endorsers of the Promise to America’s Children that makes clear in 10 critical principles that children’s minds and bodies should be nurtured and that their relationships with their parents should be safeguarded. We are concerned that our children are increasingly targeted for adults’ sexual messages, images, and themes at younger ages than ever before. They are exposed to content in schools, through both policies and curriculum, that promotes politicized information about sexual orientation and a destructive gender ideology. By altering the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include two additional protected classes, sexual orientation and gender identity, the “Equality Act” politicizes children’s medicine and education with ideologies about gender identity and sexual orientation. Furthermore, the Equality Act asserts the power and funding of the federal government to spread adults’ sexual messages, images, and themes to children nationwide—regardless of state or local school district policy. For the same reason, compromise solutions such as “Fairness for All” that attempt to secure religious exemptions while still enshrining gender identity as a protected class in civil rights law also fail to protect children. While we believe that all people, no matter who they are, have inherent dignity and should be treated with respect, the Equality Act, and any compromise that enshrines gender identity in civil rights law, actually creates greater inequality, hurting not only women, people of faith, religious organizations, employers, and medical professionals, but especially children and their parents.
    [Show full text]
  • Debating Stop Hating
    The surest sign one is losing a debate is to resort to character with the Tea Party movement. Some on the Left have even impugned the assassination. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal fundraising Manhattan Declaration - which upholds the sanctity of life, the value of machine whose tactics have been condemned by observers across the traditional marriage and the fundamental right of religious freedom - as an political spectrum, is doing just that. anti-gay document and have forced its removal from general communications networks. The group, which was once known for combating racial bigotry, is now attacking several groups that uphold Judeo-Christian moral views, including This is intolerance pure and simple. Elements of the radical Left are trying marriage as the union of a man and a woman. to shut down informed discussion of policy issues that are being considered by Congress, legislatures, and the courts. How does the SPLC attack? By labeling its opponents “hate groups.” No discussion. No consideration of the issues. No engagement. No debate! Tell the radical Left it is time to stop spreading hateful rhetoric attacking individuals and organizations merely for expressing ideas with which they These types of slanderous tactics have been used against voters who signed disagree. Our debates can and must remain civil - but they must never be petitions and voted for marriage amendments in all thirty states that have suppressed through personal assaults that aim only to malign an opponent’s considered them, as well as against the millions of Americans who identify character. START DEBATING STOP HATING You can take action by adding your name to the following statement: We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with Family Research Council, American Family Association, Concerned Women of America, National Organization for Marriage, Liberty Counsel and other pro-family organizations that are working to protect and promote natural marriage and family.
    [Show full text]
  • To the Boy Scouts of America: Show Courage
    To the Boy Scouts of America: Show courage. Stand firm for timeless values. News reports indicate that the national leaders of the Boy Scouts are considering changing their longstanding policy against having openly homosexual Scout leaders or Scouts. This would be agrave mistake. Every American who believes in freedom of thought and religious liberty should be alarmed by the attacks upon the Boy Scouts, who have had core convictions about morality for 100 years. Every Scout takes an oath to keep himself “morally straight.” The Boy Scouts have every right to include sexual conduct in how they define that term. Many of our organizations stood with the Boy Scouts when the Supreme Court of the United States upheld their right to maintain their membership standards. To compromise moral principles under political and financial pressure would teach boys cowardice, not courage. Every parent concerned about guiding and protecting their own children should also be alarmed by the proposed change to Boy Scout policy.Asthe Boy Scouts of America (BSA) confirmed as recently as last July, “the vast majority of the parents” of Boy Scouts reserve to themselves the right to introduce and give guidance on sexual topics. In addition, the current policy is part of the BSA’s efforts to protect Scouts from sexual abuse. Last year BSA released their so-called “perversion files,” which contained the names of hundreds of sexual predators who had managed to hide their attraction to boys and enter the Boy Scouts. How will parents be able to entrust their children to the Boy Scouts if they trade the well-being of the boys for corporate dollars? We, the undersigned organizations, urge the Boy Scouts of America to make no changes in national membership standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Gay Marriage Is Legalized, Now What?: Discriminatory Adoption Regulations
    GAY MARRIAGE IS LEGALIZED, NOW WHAT?: DISCRIMINATORY ADOPTION REGULATIONS JASMINE HANASAB BARKODAR ABSTRACT "First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby in the carriage." This children's riddle shows that the right to marry and start a family is granted to many, but not all. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015, many same-sex couples were finally granted the right to marry. Yet, many of these couples who sought to grow their family through adoption have faced discrimination. While the right to same-sex marriage was ruled fundamental, not all states would allow same-sex couples to adopt children. In this Note, I explore the differences in discriminatory regulations and law of married different- sex versus same-sex couples. I also explore the discriminatory differences between unmarried different-sex couples and same-sex couples. Drawing on Obergefell, I conclude that it is unconstitutional for laws to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation, sex, and marital status against same-sex couples in adoption. * Class of 2017, University of Southern California Gould School of Law; B.A. Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles. This Note is dedicated to all couples, of all sexes and orientations, that have been deprived of their constitutional rights to love, marriage, and family. Thank you to my Professor and Note supervisor, David B. Cruz, for all his valuable input as I drafted this article. Dear thanks to my husband, Leon, for his continuous support and love. Lastly, thank you to my parents and brothers who have generously and unconditionally supported me every step of the way.
    [Show full text]
  • Assistant Secretary of Health Appointment
    DONATE (HTTPS://CANCER-NETWORK.ORG/DONATE/) (https://cancer- () network.org) Support of Dr. Levine’s Appointment to serve as Assistant Secretary for Health January 27, 2021 Dear United States Senate, We, a coalition of LGBTQI+ and allied organizations, write to urge you to conrm the appointment of Pennsylvania Secretary of Health, Dr. Rachel Levine, to serve as Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH). Dr. Levine is currently Secretary of Health for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Professor of Pediatrics and Psychiatry at the Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine. She is a fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine, and the Academy for Eating Disorders. Dr. Levine is President of the Association of State and Territorial Health Ocials (ASTHO). She formerly served as Chief of the Division of Adolescent Medicine and Eating Disorders at the Penn State Hershey Medical Center. Dr. Levine has published and lectured widely on the opioid crisis, adolescent medicine, eating disorders, and LGBT medicine. Dr. Levine is also a member of the LGBTQI+ com- munity and the highest level openly transgender public health professional in U.S. history. As Secretary of Health for the 6th most populous state in the country, Dr. Levine routinely works with the Assistant Secretary of Health’s oce to build critical bridges between federal and state policies on the pandemic and more. Her election as current President of ASTHO is a clear testa- ment to the level of faith other public health leaders have in her leadership. To have a former state Secretary of Health in the ASH position in the coming months, when there is an urgent need for closer alliance between federal and state pandemic policies, will be invaluable.
    [Show full text]