Supreme Court Gets One Right on Gay Rights

Email this story

  • Supreme Court Gets One Right on Gay Rights
<p>Marriage equality protesters outside California Supreme Court, San Francisco
</p>

SOURCE: Flickr / bkusler

Andrew already wrote about the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the actions of the University of California's Hastings College of Law, which denied official recognition to a Christian student group because it discriminated against gay students. Hastings made this decision based on its non-discrimination policy, which says that student groups must be open to anyone, regardless of sexual orientation.

The group in question, Christian Legal Society, requires members to make a statement of faith that, in a portion on sexual morality, states that gay sex — along with premarital sex — is immoral (the faith statement is only visible to club members online). Gay members aren't allowed in the club.

So the Christian Legal Society sued the school, and lost. 365 Gay includes snippets from the majority and dissenting opinions:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the majority opinion, “In common with all other student organizations–to choose between welcoming all students and forgoing the benefits of official recognition, we hold, Hastings did not transgress constitutional limitations.”

Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the dissent that the decision set a precedent for “no freedom for expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country’s institutions of higher learning.”

Alito's opinion is exactly the problem. We need to get to the point where people quit viewing gay rights as an issue of "political correctness" but one of basic human dignity. Instead, Alito and others like him trivialize the concerns of gay Americans by trying to make them feel like they're inconveniencing the rest of us with their silly demands.

I'm proud of the Supreme Court for making this decision. The only downside is that it has the potential of furthering the (perceived and actual) schism between religious and LGBT communities, but at its best it will serve as a precedent for future cases involving non-discrimination clauses, regardless of which group feels discriminated against.

Paul Richards is a staff writer for Campus Progress. He attends the University of Pennsylvania.

blog comments powered by Disqus