The big difference between the RFRA of 1993 and those of 2015 is not in the bill, but in the politics surrounding the bill. Its easier to to argue for - and get support for - the ability of elders in a Native American church to use otherwise illegal drugs in a religious ceremony that to get support for gay marriage, which has exploded on the political scene recently.
A major driver of this issue is the fact that the Supreme Court is about to consider whether the 14th Amendment must be read to guarantee the right of same sex couples to be married across the nation. Most commentators argue that the court is likely to argue that will decide that they can, and the sexual orientation will join race, citizenship, and gender - among other - as a protected category.
(In my opinion, these state RFRA laws are intended to compensate for this possibility and allow for exceptions to compliance with the consequences of the Supreme Court ruling due to religious views.)
Since these cases will be heard by the court before the end of the semester, and will involve a variety of issue we cover in class, we should look at the cases soon.
Here they are:
- Obergefell v. Hodges
- Tanco v. Haslam
- DeBoer v. Snyder
- Bourke v. Beshear
Scotusblog has a special section devoted to the same-sex marriage controversy. Click here to access it.
