The Court And My Pagan Vote

The Court And My Pagan Vote October 23, 2012

(This week Patheos asked the question: “What are the key issues at stake in this election for people of your tradition?” We here at Raise the Horns decided to play along and contribute to the conversation.)

“The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.” Those words spoken by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia are frightening. As a Pagan voter there is no bigger issue to me in this year’s Presidential Election than the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. The Court as currently constituted already leans right, but the occasional swing-votes by Justices Kennedy or (surprisingly Chief Justice) Roberts keeps the Court from becoming completely partisan. Today’s Supreme Court is at least capable of surprise, but a Romney victory could ensure a conservative majority on the court for possibly decades to come.

In just a few sentences Justice Scalia was able to completely articulate why the Supreme Court issue is so important. Scalia wants to allow the states to regulate what goes on in your house, it’s as simple as that. Scalia basically comes out and says that consensual sex between adults could be a crime. What does that mean for polyamorous couples or the kink community? Could I lose a child for engaging in an act that Justice Scalia disagrees with? You might think I’m over-reacting, but Scalia’s words don’t leave much room for interpretation. Sexuality is very much a part of my faith, and it’s not something that’s the business of the Supreme Court or any state legislature.

It kind of looks all pagan antiquity like, but I fear for what could go on in here, and what has already gone on in here.

A Romney appointed Justice could mean the end of Roe vs. Wade and send women’s rights backwards instead of forwards. Robert Bork, a man who once said that the equal protection laws in the Constitution “should be kept to things like race and ethnicity,” is the Chairman of Romney’s Justice Advisory Committee. No Bork approved Justice is going to be an advocate for women.

Many of us take access to birth control for granted, but there’s a very real possibility that a far-right Court could allow employers to pick and choose what is covered in health care plans based on their religious preferences. Today it’s birth control, in the future it could translate to women having less choices in how a child is delivered or what type of treatments they might receive. In addition to medical issues there are the issues of equal pay and opportunity for women. As a goddess worshiper these things matter to me. I don’t want to live in a society where the highest court in the land refuses to treat the goddesses in my life like the goddesses they are.

I’m hesitant to label hot-button social issues as “Pagan,” but I’ve met very few Pagans who are against the legalization of gay marriage. The only reason gay marriage is illegal is because of our country’s Christian bias. There’s absolutely no sane reason to outlaw gay marriage. If marriage is only for procreation, then we’d have to outlaw senior citizens from getting married. The “Biblical definition of marriage*” has nothing to do with the social contract of marriage. People used the Bible to justify slavery and the banning of inter-racial marriage once too. As a society we grew up and cast off ignorant and childish arguments once made in the name of religion. It’s time to do that again when it comes to the issue of gay marriage. If a particular church doesn’t want to perform gay marriages they shouldn’t have to, but for the government to deny people the right to happiness and a whole host of legal protections? It’s outrageous that the future of gay marriage remains very much in doubt.

I’m not reactionary enough to believe that a court shaped in the image of Robert Bork will lead to religious re-education camps in Kansas, but I do believe that a right-wing super-majority on the Supreme Court could significantly alter the definition of “separation between church and state.” I don’t think that America is destined to become a theocracy anytime soon, but I am worried that “special privileges” could be given to Christians that would marginalize not just Pagans, but anyone involved in a minority religion.

I can see a Supreme Court that allows for prayer in the public schools. I have no issue with anyone praying, but I do have issues when teachers or other authority figures lead prayer. Sure, a far-right court might argue that not everyone has to pray when teacher bows her head, but you can see the coercion at play. Imagine being the one kid in that class with a pentagram (or a Star of David) around your neck while everyone is praying to Jesus. It’s frightening, and could be a reality in the near future.

Special privileges for Christians could be wide-ranging too. How would you like to see the Ten Commandments in every court house? Or a judge lead his court in prayer before a hearing involving your right to practice your faith? Perhaps an unsympathetic neighbor doesn’t want your coven to meet at your house. There are all kinds of regulatory tricks and procedures that could make such gatherings illegal, and forget about any community down South allowing another mosque to be built.

More Sotomayor, less Alito.
There’s nothing in our upcoming future to suggest that Pagans will soon be forced to sew black pentagrams onto all of their garments. No one is going to ban Paganism, but what if we wake up in a world where it’s OK to fire someone for wearing a pentacle to work? How about losing your kids for practicing your religion? I don’t think I’m over-reacting when I express concern about these things.

The decision by Chief Justice Roberts to uphold the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) means that if Romney is able to nominate a Justice, the Tea Party conservatives in Congress are going to demand one that believes in their agenda. Nothing less will satisfy them. Imagine a court in the image of Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Kennedy and Roberts already vote with that block on a consistent basis, an Alito-clone replacing a Ruth Bader Ginsburg could lead to a conservative majority for a generation. To me that’s a chilling prospect.

*The argument for “the Biblical definition of marriage” has always been a bit bonkers to begin with. Many men in the Bible had numerous wives, and some of those men were marrying twelve year old girls. Are those the “Biblical definitions of marriage” many on the right are arguing about?

Content Director’s Note: This post is a part of our Election Month at Patheos feature. Patheos was designed to present the world’s most compelling conversations on life’s most important questions. Please join the Facebook following for our new News and Politics Channel — and check back throughout the month for more commentary on Election 2012. Please use hashtag #PatheosElection on Twitter.

Browse Our Archives