Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has advised county clerks in that state that they may, in defense of their religious liberty, refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, despite the United States Supreme Court's ruling, in Obergefell v. Hodges, that the Constitution requires the several States to issue such licenses to same-sex couples, as well as recognizing marriages between same-sex couples contracted in other States. Paxton's reasoning was that public officials, including those whose official duties are ministerial in nature (i.e., the official is not at discretion to refuse to discharge their official duty - namely, the issuing of marriage licenses to qualified applicants), cannot be forced to violate their conscience, or their religious principles, by performing an official act that conflicts with such religious principles. This is "defense of religious liberty," as it is practiced in 21st-century America.
It may prove to be the ultimate irony of the "religious liberty" debate in this country, that the robust defense of public officials's religious liberty may lead, ultimately, to the erosion, even the very elimination, of religious liberty for ALL citizens, not just public officials. Paxton has set the State of Texas sliding down a slippery slope, the bottom of which, though by no means near - yet - may nonetheless be seen clearly. Such a bottom would be completely contrary to Paxton's intent, and that of others of his intellectual disposition. Nonetheless, while an unintended consequence, it would prove to be a consequence that must be accepted, if our society continues down that slope.
Defending a public official's "religious liberty" to refuse to perform an official, ministerial act is a course of action without end. If a Christian county clerk may refuse to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, what is to prevent a Jehovah's Witness building inspector from refusing to issue a building permit to a Catholic organization, for the construction of a new church? What is to prevent a religious homeschooling advocate from refusing to grant a permit to a private charter academy, to open and operate their school? The latter example would pit two conservative constituencies - religious conservatives, and private entities performing formerly-public functions - against each other, a delicious refinement of the principle of "beware what you wish for; you may get it."
Shall our society embrace the spectacle of a Muslim DMV official denying a Jewish - or Christian, for that matter! - applicant for a Commercial Driver License, or vice versa? Shall a Baptist, serving on a professional-licensure board, be allowed to deny a professional license to a Mormon applicant, regardless of the applicant's sexual orientation? To expand the metaphor, shall a medical, or other allied-healthcare licensing board chair, suffering from the heebie-jeebies at the prospect of a homosexual applicant performing any of the activities of a healthcare provider, be allowed to indulge their aversion by denying the license? What if the only evidence of a physician's homosexuality is the fact that he, or she, holds a marriage license authorizing marriage to another person of the same sex? What will be the scope of public officials's right to claim a "religious liberty" exemption from the exercise of their ministerial function?
Ultimately, there will be no religious liberty for anybody, if public officials are allowed to abdicate their official duty arbitrarily, if not capriciously. The only way around the loss, by all, of their religious liberty, would be the ballooning of the ranks of public officials - another conflict between conservative principles - so that Catholic officials would process Catholic applicants's applications, Jewish officials for Jewish applicant's, Muslims for Muslims, Zoroastrians for Zoroastrians, Baha'is for Baha'is, etc., etc., ad nauseam sine terminum.Our society would then, far from guaranteeing our liberties, fulfill "in our own flesh" Thomas Jefferson's complaint against King George III, in the Declaration of Independence, that "he has ... sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."
Is this, really, what we Americans want for our society? Is this the depth to which we, in the 21st century, have been reduced?
