Christians in Government

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

An exchange of e-mails yesterday with Bruce Garner, a member of the Episcopal Church's Executive Council along with several others posted on the House of Bishops-Deputies mail list got me thinking on this subject.

The immediate incident which brought this up was the case of Lillian Ledele, a registrar in the Borough of Islington, whose job is to perform marriage ceremonies (I assume among other duties), as well as now same sex partnership ceremonies which are now legal under English law. She asked to be excused from performing same sex ceremonies because she said her "orthodox Christian beliefs" caused her to conclude such ceremonies were wrong. There are other registers who can perform the services. The Islington Borough Council began disciplinary procedures and she appealed to the Central London Employment Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that the Council discriminated against her on the basis of religion.

A couple of things are unclear in the story on her case in The Independent. First, did she actually refuse to perform the services or did she just ask if other registers could do them? I see nothing wrong with her asking and, if an accommodation can be made without impeding the efficiency of the Register's Office, for example, by keeping each register's workload at about the same level, allowing it. But the article sounds as if she has an actual right to refuse, no matter the impact.

This bothers me as a lawyer and as a civil servant, which I have been for over 22 years. At the beginning of this story is the oath of office all Federal officers and employees take (except for the President, whose oath is in the Constitution). Nowhere does it say I am to support the doctrine of the Episcopal Church or any other church.

My job is to implement the policies of the Administration in office at the time as long as they are consistent with the law. Whether or not I agree with them or like them isn't the point. Whether or not I think they are consistent with my religious beliefs is also besides the point. No one elected me to push my personal positions.

Similarly, Ms. Ledele wasn't elected to make subjective calls on whether people of the same sex should be able to enter into civil partnerships; that decision was made by the Government backed by a majority of the House of Commons who was elected to make those decisions.

For example, I am opposed for several reasons, some religious in nature, to capital punishment. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has said repeatedly that under the right circumstances, the death penalty is constitutional. If they said it, it is constitutional. If my job required me to argue in favor of capital punishment (thank God it doesn't!), I would have these choices:

1. Argue for capital punishment, recognising that my job is not to put forward my own opinions, but to advocate the position of the United States.
2. Ask to be excused from the case because I could not faithfully represent that position.
3. Resign my position.

Obviously, if I got turned down on #2, I'd have to choose between 1 and 3. Ugh. But nowhere do I see a right to use my Government position to advance my position in opposition to capital punishment. It may be that English law grants Ms. Ledele a right I lack. I suggest that isn't a good thing.

Assume my job allowed me to perform marriages in the State of Georgia. My role is to see that the people coming before me meet the requirements of law, not my own requirements. What if my beliefs said people of different races must not be married? What about a restriction to having only one spouse at a time? What if I don't believe there should be a minimum age?

This isn't new. A few years ago, Roy Moore, then the Chief Justice of Alabama, argued that his religious beliefs allowed him to post the Ten Commandments (actually one version of the Commandments, but that's another story) on State property. He lost, and when he refused to comply with the law, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary removed him from office. And they were right. What if instead of the Ten Commandments, it was a religious document of Islam? In our system, the Government can't make that distinction.