Large Christian Charity Embraces Gay Employees … If They’re Married

World Vision USA is updating its code of conduct to reflect changing marriage norms.

BY MICHAEL O'LOUGHLIN

World Vision USA, the American branch of one of the world’s largest evangelical Christian charitable organizations, says that employees are still expected to abstain from extramarital sex, but for the first time will consider sexual activity within a marriage between two men or two women to be in line with its rules.

Rich Stearns, president of World Vision USA, told employees in a letter that the organization has “not endorsed same-sex marriage, but we have chosen to defer to the authority of local churches on this issue.”

In an interview with Christianity Today, Stearns said that World Vision USA was not responding to a lawsuit or employee lobbying.

“There is no lawsuit threatening us,” he said. “There is no employee group lobbying us. This is simply a decision about whether or not you are eligible for employment at World Vision U.S., based on this single issue, and nothing more.”

“Changing the employee conduct policy to allow someone in a same-sex marriage who is a professed believer in Jesus Christ to work for us makes our policy more consistent with our practice on other divisive issues,” he said. “It also allows us to treat all of our employees the same way: abstinence outside of marriage, and fidelity within marriage.”

Stearns lamented the impact same-sex marriage has had on Christian churches.

“It’s been heartbreaking to watch this issue rip through the church,” he told Christianity Today. “It’s tearing churches apart, tearing denominations apart, tearing Christian colleges apart, and even tearing families apart. Our board felt we cannot jump into the fight on one side or another on this issue. We’ve got to focus on our mission. We are determined to find unity in our diversity.”

Criticism of World Vision USA’s action came swiftly. Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said the heart of Christianity is in jeopardy because of decisions like this, The Washington Post reports. “At stake is the gospel of Jesus Christ,“ he said.

“If sexual activity outside of a biblical definition of marriage is morally neutral, then, yes, we should avoid making an issue of it,” he added. “If, though, what the Bible clearly teaches and what the church has held for 2,000 years is true, then refusing to call for repentance is unspeakably cruel and, in fact, devilish.”

World Visions provides disaster relief to 250 million people each year, in nearly 100 countries, and has revenue of about $1 billion per year.  According to Christianity Today, the organization "has staff from more than 50 denominations — a handful of which have sanctioned same-sex marriages or unions in recent years, including the United Church of Christ, The Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Presbyterian Church (USA).”

Miss. Couple Creates First Record of Same-Sex Marriage

The couple’s registration of their New York marriage license doesn’t mean Mississippi will recognize their union, but it’s part of a push for marriage equality in Southern states.

BY TRUDY RING

In a first for Mississippi, a same-sex couple has created a public record of their marriage, which still does not give it legal standing in the state but lays the groundwork for further progress.

Anna Guillot and Chrissy Kelly, who were married in New York in 2012, paid $12 Tuesday to record their marriage license from that state at the Rankin County Chancery Clerk’s Office in Brandon, Miss. They live in Rankin County.

Their action is part of the Campaign for Southern Equality’s We Do Campaign, an effort for marriage equality in Southern states, which came to Mississippi this week. “Couples like Anna and Chrissy are doing everything in their power to have their marriage recognized — including creating a public record of their marriage,” Rev. Jasmine Beach-Ferrara, executive director of the Campaign for Southern Equality, said in a press release. “Now no one can deny the reality of their marriage, their love or their commitment. We are calling for Mississippi to treat LGBT people equally under the law.”

Added Kelly: “We want people to know they are not alone. There are gay couples here in Rankin County.”

In a follow-up move today, five same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses at the Hinds County Courthouse in Jackson. All were denied.

Four of the five couples have children, said Beach-Ferrara, who hopes the action will point up that lack of marriage recognition harms children. Mississippi, she said, has the highest percentage of same-sex couples raising children — 26 percent — in the nation.

Other events scheduled in Mississippi include a lecture on the LGBT equality movement by Beach-Ferrara at Milsaps College in Jackson tonight at 7; an LGBT rights rally in downtown Jackson at noon tomorrow; and a community organizing dinner in Hattiesburg from 7 to 9 p.m. tomorrow.

In previous We Do actions, same-sex couples have registered their marriage licenses in 17 counties in North Carolina and one county in Alabama. Like the registration by Guillot and Kelly, this does not give the marriages legal recognition in those states, but it does create a public record.

The next stop for the We Do Campaign will be May 8 in Raleigh, N.C., said Beach-Ferrara. The date is the second anniversary of North Carolina’s adoption of Amendment One, writing a ban on same-sex marriage into its constitution. Find more information on the Campaign for Southern Equality’s Facebook page.

Federal judge strikes down Texas gay marriage ban

(if you click on the video it will play)

How a Single Gay Juror Brought Down Nevada’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban

In 2011, attorneys for Abbott Laboratories dismissed a prospective juror prior to a blockbuster trial on account of his sexual orientation. Abbott’s attorneys were convinced that the juror, an openly gay man, would be prejudiced against Abbott, which had been accused of inflating the price of an HIV drug. The company’s legal opponents cried foul and litigated the dismissal. And now, thanks to that juror, Nevada just gave up on its same-sex marriage ban.

How did a complex case about peremptory jury strikes lead a Republican governor to give up on his state’s constitutional ban against gay marriage? The legal path is rocky and strange—and also fairly amusing. Here’s a sketch of the chain of events.

While Abbott prepared to litigate its dismissal of a gay juror last summer, the Supreme Court issued a case you may have heard of: U.S. v. Windsor. In Windsor, the court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, holding that it “violates basic due process and equal protection principles” of the Constitution. Although the court irritatingly refused to clarify its precise rationale, many commentators believed that the justices had granted gays heightened constitutional protections, similar to the type that women are afforded.

Before Abbott’s gay juror case went to trial, the 9th Circuit asked the company’s attorneys to explain Windsor’s effect on its arguments. This was bad news for Abbott. Any reasonable observer could see that Windsor changed the game, elevating legal protections for gays to an unprecedented extent. The Supreme Court has already ruled that blacks and women cannot be pre-emptively struck from a jury on the basis of their race or gender, as both jurors and defendants must be protected from racism, sexism, and “historical prejudice.” Shouldn’t the same logic now apply to gay jurors, in order to shield them from similar bigotry and “historical prejudice”?

The 9th Circuit said yes—and then some. In a profoundly bold and trailblazing opinion, Judge Stephen Reinhardt waved aside Abbott’s arguments, holding that allowing strikes based on “preconceived notions of the identities, preferences, and biases” of gay people would perpetuate the “history of exclusion of gays and lesbians from democratic institutions.” And he didn’t stop there: This exclusion, Reinhardt wrote, was unacceptable in light of Windsor because:

In its words and its deed, Windsor established a level of scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation that is unquestionably higher than rational basis review. … In short, Windsor requires heightened scrutiny.
These sentences did nothing less than herald a new era of gay rights. For decades, gay activists have strived for this precise constitutional protection; now the 9th Circuit had afforded it to them. No longer, the 9th Circuit declared, can gays be denied basic rights based on some vague notion of traditional values. Instead, a state must have a compelling interest in discriminating against gays—and because no such interest exists, they must be afforded the same rights as everybody else.

The ruling only applied to those states within the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction, including—you guessed it—Nevada. When the Abbott opinion was handed down, Nevada’s attorney general was already struggling to defend the state’s marriage ban; following Windsor, she asked for a series of extensions in light of the changing legal landscape. A federal judge had upheld the ban in late 2012, but that was during the dark days of DOMA; now, in the shadow of Windsor, the state’s argument that it must discriminate against gays in order to “preserve traditional marriage” was beginning to look a little flimsy.

And now it has toppled completely. Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto filed a motion with the 9th Circuit on Monday conceding that, following the gay juror ruling, “the state has determined that its arguments grounded upon equal protection and due process are no longer sustainable.” Brian Sandoval, the state’s Republican governor, agrees, admitting that “it has become clear that this case is no longer defensible in court.” And just like that, the always ridiculous rationale for banning gay marriage fell away, revealing the silly, nonsensical bigotry that has always lurked underneath.

It’s likely that a group of Republican legislators will step in to defend that law in place of the attorney general. But without the support of even the Republican governor, they’ll be fighting an uphill battle. With Windsor, the Supreme Court gave judges across America permission to knock down legal barriers to gay equality. The 9th Circuit took the justices up on their offer, and in doing so, it may have triggered a chain reaction. Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Alaska all fall within the 9th Circuit—and all ban gay marriage. For gay couples hoping to get married in those states, today should mark the start of a race to the courthouse.

A Steady Path to Supreme Court as Gay Marriage Gains Momentum in States

ByADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON — A sweeping decision on Thursday night struck down Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage and continued a remarkable winning streak for gay rights advocates, putting new pressure on the Supreme Court to decide the momentous question it ducked last summer: whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Since June, when the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to equal treatment in at least some settings, federal judges in Oklahoma, Utah and Virginia have struck down laws barring same-sex marriages. In state legislatures and state courts, too, supporters of same-sex marriage have been winning.

“The pace of change has perhaps outstripped the Supreme Court’s preferences, but the momentum is tremendous,” said Suzanne B. Goldberg, a law professor at Columbia.

Rapid changes in public opinion are also playing a part, said Andrew M. Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern. “It is becoming increasingly clear to judges that if they rule against same-sex marriage their grandchildren will regard them as bigots,” he said.

Instriking down Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage, Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen of Federal District Court in Norfolk relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in June in United States v. Windsor, which ruled that the federal government must provide benefits to same-sex couples married in states that allow such unions.

The Windsor decision also figured prominently in recent rulings from federal judges striking down bans on same-sex marriage in OklahomaandUtah.

The three trial-court decisions vindicated a prediction from Justice Antonin Scalia, who dissented in Windsor. “By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency,” he wrote, “the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.”

He has so far turned out to be right, presumably to his bitter dismay.

In keeping with the pace of change, Judge Wright Allen’s decision was marked by haste. It was issued late in the evening, which was curious in light of the fact that it was stayed pending appeal. And its first paragraph, since corrected, initially attributed the phrase “all men are created equal” to the Constitution, though it is in the Declaration of Independence.

The decision chose just one of the plausible readings of Windsor, which contained doctrinal crosscurrents. Indeed, Judge Wright Allen quoted a long passage from Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion extolling the central role of states in defining marriage. That would seem to support allowing Virginia to decide whom it will let marry.

“Notwithstanding the wisdom usually residing within proper deference to state authorities regarding domestic relations,” Judge Wright Allen wrote, prompt action from the courts was required. “When core civil rights are at stake,” she said, “the judiciary must act.”

She drew on other parts of Justice Kennedy’s opinion, and she had plenty to work with. Treating same-sex marriages differently from others, he wrote, “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, and whose relationship the state has sought to dignify.”

“And,” he added, “it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples.”

Judge Wright Allen began her decision with a quotation from Mildred Loving, who successfully challenged Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage in the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia.

The Loving decision, which struck down such bans nationwide, is instructive in many ways, including in how to gauge the pace of change.

The Supreme Court issued the decision in 1967, which was quite late in the civil rights era. At the time, only 16 states still prohibited interracial unions.

Almost two decades had passed since the California Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban on interracial marriage in 1948.

In the meantime, the United States Supreme Court took sometimes unseemly pains, in an era when its jurisdiction was often nominally mandatory, to avoid ruling on the question.

If past were prologue, this might indicate that the Supreme Court will take its time before returning to the question of what the Constitution has to say about same-sex marriage, particularly now that the court’s jurisdiction is almost entirely discretionary.

After all, only 17 states and the District of Columbia allow such unions, not counting the recent decisions, all stayed, from Oklahoma, Utah and Virginia.

On the other hand, public opinion in 1967 was strongly against interracial marriage, while most polls show that a rapidly growing majority of Americans support same-sex marriage.

That transformation in public sentiment will not be ignored by the judiciary, Professor Koppelman said.

He added that the Supreme Court is likely to step in as soon as next year should any of the recent decisions be affirmed by a federal appeals court.

Professor Goldberg agreed that “pressure is building in society and building in the courts,” making it “likely but not inevitable that the Supreme Court will take a marriage case in the near future.”

Still, the justices are often wary of a backlash and might prefer to let the democratic process and lower courts work through contentious social issues before weighing in.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a leading champion of women’s rights, has often said the Supreme Court should have issued a narrower decision in 1973 in Roe v. Wade rather than announcing a broad constitutional right to abortion nationwide. State legislatures, she has said, were making progress on the issue.

Justice Ginsburg’s historical account is contested, but there is reason to think that her caution played a role in the court’s failure in June to say in Hollingsworth v. Perry whether the Constitution requires states to let gay and lesbian couples marry.

The justices continue to mull the crucial question of when to weigh in when society is on the move.

Ina joint appearance last week, Justice Elena Kagan seemed to give Justice Ginsburg a nudge.

“She has been critical of certain cases, most notably Roe v. Wade, for having ruled too expansively and too quickly,” Justice Kagan said of Justice Ginsburg, who listened attentively. “But she has also recognized that when the time is right courts can play an important role in ratifying society’s progress.”