A Remedy for Christian “Homophobia”: Coercive Enlightenment

Religious liberty has been under relentless assault in recent years. Cases have sought to banish the Ten Commandments from children’s classrooms, crèches from town greens, and Bible studies from both public schools and private homes. But now, I fear, a new line has been crossed: A District of Columbia court has ordered a Roman Catholic institution to pay the bill for homosexual dance mixers.

The case, which has aroused surprisingly little interest among evangelicals, began eight years ago. A student organization, the Gay People of Georgetown University (GPGU,) demanded recognition and funds from the university in order to sponsor gay social events and promote homosexual education. Georgetown refused, arguing diplomatically that “while it supports and cherishes the individual lives and rights of its students, it cannot subsidize this cause because it would be an inappropriate endorsement for a Catholic university.”

GPGU sued, alleging illegal discrimination. It turns out that, under the District of Columbia’s Human Rights Act, no organization can legally deny benefits to anyone based on “sexual orientation discrimination”—a term it defines as “male or female homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality, by preference or practice.”

At the initial hearing, the D.C. Superior Court sided with Georgetown. The court agreed that the general constitutional guarantee of religious freedom took precedence over Washington’s Human Rights Act.

GPGU appealed. And last November, the D.C. Court of Appeals reversed the decision, concluding: “The District of Columbia’s compelling interest in the eradication of sexual orientation discrimination outweighs any burden imposed upon Georgetown’s exercise of religion by the forced equal provision of tangible benefits.”

Translated out of legalese, this means the court believes guaranteeing homosexual rights to be so central to government’s role that it outweighs the right of religious institutions to distribute their money according to their beliefs. Thus, a local, 13-member city council was able to pass a simple ordinance, arbitrarily determining Washington’s “compelling interest”—and, sweeping aside 200 years of established constitution protections, a local court enforced it.

This is frightening. After all, what government bureaucracy doesn’t think its own interest is “compelling”?

The court did affirm that Georgetown need not give formal university recognition to GPGU, acknowledging that it could not determine what the university should think about homosexuality (though there is the implication that they would if they could). But it did force the university to further the District’s vision of equality by requiring that it finance its gay student organization.

The attitude seems clear, if not stated baldly: “Though your doctrine—to which you are entitled—is backward and unenlightened, at least we can make you behave in a progressive and enlightened fashion.” But as constitutional scholar (and Georgetown professor) Walter Berns commented, “… what qualified an American court to pass judgment on the validity of a moral teaching?”

Though the decision applies only in the District, it raises disturbing implications.

First, if this type of judicial reasoning prevails, any religious institution will be subject to the same intrusions wherever there happens to be a local anti-discrimination law that includes provisions for homosexuals. If in Illinois, then Wheaton College. If in Virginia, then CBN University. If it becomes part of national civil rights legislation, this religion bashing could blanket the country.

Second, the decision raises the prospect that other state interests might be accorded similar treatment. The reasoning suggests that any “compelling” government interest outweighs religious interest, no matter what doctrines get trampled. What of the church that ordains no women pastors? Or the Jewish seminary that admits only Jews?

To follow the logic of the D.C. decision, religious freedom is reduced to choosing prayers or humming hymns rather than deciding whom the church can hire or what groups a religious institution can support or fund. Religious institutions can be required by law to reflect every so-called civil rights trend of the moment—at least when it comes to the provision of benefits.

With so much at stake, you would expect Georgetown to appeal to the Supreme Court. Astonishingly, it did not. The university, like a man boasting of the necktie used to hang him, proclaimed the decision a victory. Since the court required the university not to recognize the gay group, just fund it, Georgetown announced it had won an important point, and could therefore give up the fight and set about to heal and rebuild.

Besides, as Georgetown’s president wrote foggily in a 10-page letter to alumni, “The University’s presence in the delicate area of teaching is needed, but may well also appeal to those to whom it is directed both as an interference and a disputable one at that.” (Heaven forbid that the church might call sin “sin,” and thus “interfere” with anyone’s free choice.)

Maybe Georgetown just suffered from legal exhaustion; granted, it fought the case for eight years. But it is hard to avoid the suspicion that the school caved in to the pressure of “enlightened” opinion. No institution wants to risk appearing to the Washington community as a bastion of homophobia. That’s a disease as dreaded among the city’s media and political elites as AIDS.

But one thing is clear. Georgetown’s surrender in refusing to contest the court’s decision has allowed this intrusive legislation to stand for any religious institution in the nation’s capital. Landmark court decisions of this type, though not directly binding elsewhere, are often used to support legal arguments in similar cases. They provide a precedent, a model of sorts.

Georgetown contends that it stood its ground, that the court’s decision was a partial victory. A few more victories like this, and there will be precious little religious liberty left to defend.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.