Governor Bentley,

As you are aware, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday legalized so-called same-sex marriage in all fifty states, a decision by a committee of five unelected lawyers so profoundly undemocratic that Justice Antonin Scalia declared the Court a “threat to American democracy.”

In a friend of the court brief you submitted in March, prior to oral arguments on the case, you wrote that same-sex marriage destroys the “rights of children to be connected to their biological parents.” From reading that brief it is clear that you have considered the wide-ranging impact of the ultimate ruling.

Today I urge you to consider another group of individuals who will be directly affected by the Court’s decision: People of Faith, who now find their right to freely exercise their religion in imminent danger.

The dissenting opinions of several justices make the religious liberty implications of the Court’s ruling abundantly clear.

“Today’s decision… creates serious questions about religious liberty,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. “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.”

Chief Justice Roberts noted that some states where same-sex marriage had been democratically approved prior to the Court’s ruling made accommodations for “dissenting religious practice.”

However, “The majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations,” he explained. “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.”

This is particularly concerning for individuals in private business, who should never be forced by law to make the decision between operating a business and violating their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Justice Clarence Thomas warned in his dissent that it “appears all but inevitable” that the role of the government and of religious institutions will “come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

“Although our Constitution provides some protection against such governmental restrictions on religious practices, the People have long elected to afford broader protections than this Court’s constitutional precedents mandate,” he continued. “Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.”

Ministers should never be forced to perform same-sex marriages or have a moment’s concern that preaching from their faith’s sacred texts may expose them to hate crime charges.

Additionally, the government should not be permitted to leverage the tax-exempt status of religious institutions as a means of coercion.

During oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito voiced concerns that the tax-exempt status of religious institutions could face heightened scrutiny if the Court invented a Constitutional right for same-sex couples to get married. Even Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who argued the case for the Obama administration, admitted “it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that.”

One inherent lie of the so called “equality” movement is that all ideas are equally valid. Everything is relative, they say, including truth.

This is false, particularly with regard to American culture. The Judeo-Christian tradition and worldview that formed the foundation of American society and governance are superior, which is why they spawned — by literally any measure — the greatest nation in human history.

The way the lie of “equality” is enforced and spread is through ridicule. People who simply point out the fact that certain ideas, lifestyles and traditions are superior to others are attacked for being “bigots.”

Recognizing this, Justice Alito predicted in his dissent that the Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage “will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.”

The social pressures on People of Faith, who are compelled to live their lives in a way that is increasingly counter-cultural, must be borne by the People. The government has no obligation to protect any group from ridicule. However, legal pressures should not be added on top of those, and any government that values justice has an obligation to protect the rights of individuals to freely practice the tenets of their faith.

In light of the Court’s decision, many of the concerns outlined above are unfortunately now most fully addressed at the Federal level. However, I urge you on behalf of People of Faith across Alabama — where our state motto is “We Dare Defend Our Rights” — to be proactive and include religious liberty among the issues to be addressed in a Special Legislative Session this summer.

Under your leadership, Alabama has an opportunity to be at the forefront of defending religious liberty, a founding principle that unites Americans across partisan and ideological lines. I trust you will give this issue the attention it demands.

Sincerely,

Cliff Sims

Cliff Sims is the CEO of Yellowhammer Multimedia and Editor-in-Chief of Yellowhammer News.

Like this article? Hate it? Follow me on Twitter and let me know what you think.

— Cliff Sims (@Cliff_Sims) June 9, 2015