WASHINGTON (BNG)—A Supreme Court decision this summer to legalize same-sex marriage in America would exacerbate a pattern of restrictions on the free speech of individuals who say publicly they believe homosexuality is a sin, according to a legal brief filed April 2 by leaders of religious bodies including the Southern Baptist Convention.

Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin CochranThe brief cites examples including fired Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran, accused of violating department policy by giving a Christian book he wrote condemning homosexuality to members of his staff. The Liberty Institute friend-of-the-court brief says in their zeal to advance gay marriage, many state actors have trampled on the free-speech rights of religious dissenters.

The brief offers “a cautionary tale of a road to potential tyranny” by detailing incidents “where religious dissenters from same-sex marriage have been silenced by state actors and thereby denied access to the marketplace of ideas.”

If the court imposes same-sex marriage nationwide, as many expect, the signers say the number of such conflicts inevitably will increase.

Ministries joining the argument include the National Religious Broadcasters, Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse. Others signing on include former Southern Baptist Convention President Charles Stanley’s In Touch Ministries and Pathway to Victory, the broadcast ministry of Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas.

Dallas Theological Seminary, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary joined the argument, along with individuals including Southeastern Seminary President Daniel Akin, Southern Seminary President Al Mohler and Owen Strachan of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

Brief wants court to affirm state laws

The brief asks the Supreme Court to affirm a November ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that state laws defining marriage as only between a man and a woman do not violate the constitutional rights of gays.

The justices consented in January to answer once and for all whether marriage is a constitutional right, combining four cases challenging marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. One of the individuals suing for the right to wed is an openly gay Baptist minister. The cases will be argued April 28, with a decision expected in June.

In recent weeks, controversy arose in states considering religious liberty laws that opponents claim mask a hidden agenda of permitting Christian business owners to refuse services like baking a cake or arranging flowers for a wedding if the couple is gay.

As the culture shifts toward full acceptance of same-sex marriage, the brief contends, the traditional Christian understanding of marriage as involving a husband and wife not only is increasingly a minority view, but also one in danger of being marginalized and silenced.

One case study in the legal argument is the “Houston Five,” pastors ordered to turn over sermons and writings in a lawsuit challenging protections for sexual orientation and gender identity in the city’s nondiscrimination policy.

Houston Mayor Annise Parker, who is a lesbian, subsequently withdrew subpoenas against the five ministers, who were not parties in the case but had spoken about it, after protests from religious groups across the theological spectrum.

Addressing multiple disputes

Other examples of the kinds of disputes the brief hopes to avoid include:

• A former graduate student at Eastern Michigan University who sued the school after she was kicked out of its counseling program for refusing to counsel gay clients in a way that affirmed their identity.

• A Missouri State University graduate who sued the school, claiming retaliation because she refused to support gay adoption as part of a class project.

• A 19-year Air Force veteran who claimed he was relieved of duty for disagreeing with a lesbian commander over the issue of gay marriage.

• A Seventh-day Adventist preacher who claimed a state public health department rescinded a job offer over sermons he posted online denouncing homosexuality and evolution.

• A Pentecostal Navy chaplain reassigned after his commanding officers received complaints alleging he disregarded his duty to be inclusive in his counseling.

“Millions of Christian ministers, teachers and leaders are compelled by faith and conscience to preach and speak aloud their millennia-old and sincerely held religious view that marriage is the sacred union of one man and one woman,” the brief concludes.

In refusing to overturn state gay-marriage bans, the brief says, the Supreme Court “should reaffirm that the free speech clause of the First Amendment protects religious dissenters who disagree with same-sex marriage and to reaffirm the importance of free debate and free inquiry in this democratic republic.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—A leading group of Latino evangelicals has called for an end to state-sanctioned capital punishment, the first national association of evangelicals to do so.

In a unanimous vote, the National Latino Evangelical Coalition urged its 3,000 member congregations to seek and end to capital punishment across the country.

The National Latino Evangelical Coalition urged its 3,000 member congregations to seek an end to capital punishment. (RNS Photo courtesy of Heather Beaudoin)“As Christ followers, we are called to work toward justice for all,” coalition President Gabriel Salguero said. “And as Latinos, we know too well that justice is not always even-handed.”

The decision came after a years-long discernment process that included prayer as well as dialogue with anti-death penalty groups like Equal Justice USA since at least 2013, Salguero said.

“EJUSA has found that evangelicals are eager to take another look at this issue, reflecting what we’re seeing in the country as a whole,” said Shari Silberstein, executive director of Equal Justice USA.

The vote came days after an Arizona court exonerated Debra Milke, a woman who spent more than two decades on death row.

American support for the death penalty has hit the lowest levels in 40 years, and a 2014 poll by Barna Group showed Christian support for the practice also is waning, especially among young adults. According to Barna, only 5 percent of Americans think Jesus would support the government’s ability to execute the worst criminals.

Many religious groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, oppose the death penalty, but evangelical groups tend to take a more conservative stance.

The 16 million-member Southern Baptist Convention, America’s largest Protestant denomination, issued a resolution in 2000 supporting “the fair and equitable use of capital punishment.” The Assemblies of God reports opinion among its members is “mixed” but more people associated with the Assemblies favor it for certain types of crimes.

While the Latino coalition was the first to take this stance, “I don’t think they will be the last,” Silberstein said.

The National Association of Evangelicals supports capital punishment. But its position hasn’t been updated since 1973, and sources within the NAE say leadership is considering a change.

“The truth is that a fallen system does not mete out justice with equanimity,” Salguero said. “The gospel calls us to speak out for life, and our unanimous decision today to call for the end of capital punishment is part of that commitment.”

WASHINGTON (BNG)—The head of a watchdog group advocating separation of church and state insists the IRS should investigate whether Liberty University broke the law when U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz announced on campus he is running for president.

Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State wrote IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, urging the agency to crack down on laws that forbid tax-exempt nonprofit groups from partisan politics before the 2016 presidential race hits full steam.

Invitation to defy the law

Barry LynnLynn, an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ, also mentioned Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative group that openly defies the ban by inviting preachers to endorse candidates from the pulpit. ADF hopes if churches are sued, the rule added to the tax code in 1954 would be declared unconstitutional.

The electioneering prohibition applies to houses of worship and 501(c)(3) charities like Liberty University, a church-related school founded by the late Jerry Falwell.

It is difficult to see the invitation to Cruz, widely interpreted as an attempt to court evangelical voters, “as anything less than an endorsement of his candidacy, notwithstanding the university president’s perfunctory disclaimer to the contrary,” Lynn said.

Cruz a member of FBC Houston

Cruz, a member of First Baptist Church in Houston, became the first major presidential contender officially announced as a candidate. He kicked off his campaign at the school in Lynchburg, Va., March 23.

“Sen. Cruz wanted potential donors and conservative voters to believe that he has the support of thousands of young people at the largest Christian university in the world,” Lynn wrote.

Liberty University has a long history of mingling politics and faith, he added. Americans United previously reported the school to the IRS three times, most recently in 2010.

A reluctant IRS

Liberty University’s decision “to hold what amounted to a campaign rally” for Cruz is “precisely the sort of activity” that should warrant investigation of its tax status, Lynn said. Unwillingness by the IRS in recent years to launch such investigations, he said, “has had the apparent effect of leading Liberty and other tax-exempt entities to believe they can ignore federal law.”

Many Americans don’t want to see nonprofit groups turned into partisan outposts, Lynn asserted.

“Many Americans are concerned over the abuse of tax-exempt status by organizations with partisan political intent,” he wrote. “With our nation approaching a presidential election, the problem of pulpit politicking will only become more acute.”

OKLAHOMA CITY (RNS)—In an effort to block the state’s involvement with same-sex marriage, the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed a bill to abolish marriage licenses in the state.

The legislation, authored by Rep. Todd Russ, R-Cordell, amends language in the state law that governs the responsibilities of court clerks. All references to marriage licenses were removed.

Todd RussThe intent of the bill is to protect court clerks caught between the federal and state governments, Russ said. A federal appeals court overturned Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage last year. Russ, like many Republican legislators in the state, including Gov. Mary Fallin, believes the federal government overstepped its constitutional authority on this issue.

Acknowledging his bill is partially in response to the federal court ruling, Russ told ABC News affiliate KSWO the federal government lacks the power to “force its new definitions of what they believe on independent states.”

The federal government is attempting to change the traditional definition of marriage, Russ said. So, his legislation would place the responsibility for officiating marriages in the hands of clergy.

“Marriage was historically a religious covenant first and a government-recognized contract second,” Russ told The Oklahoman.

‘Pandora’s box’

The legislation has sparked controversy, both in the Legislature and with groups such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Oklahoma Democrats are concerned the legislation will lead to a “Pandora’s box” of issues, including polygamy, once the government’s authority to regulate marriage is removed.

Americans United released a statement opposing the bill, saying it is biased against same-sex couples and nontheists, including atheists. Russ has been unapologetic in defending his exclusion of nontheists from the right to marry.

Spiritual basis

“They don’t have a spiritual basis for a marriage and don’t want to have a clergy member or a priest or someone involved in the spiritual aspect,” Russ told KSWO. “Then they can file an affidavit of common-law marriage.”

The bill would require court clerks to issue certificates of marriage signed by ordained clergy or affidavits of common-law marriage.

The Senate has not yet voted on the measure, and Fallin has not indicated what she will do if the bill passes the Senate.

NASHVILLE, Tenn.—When it comes to immigration reform, American evangelicals want it all, and they want it now, a survey reveals.

Nine out of 10 (86 percent) want more border security. Six in 10 (61 percent) support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. More than two-thirds (68 percent) favor both. 

A new survey of evangelical Christians from Nashville-based LifeWay Research, sponsored by the Evangelical Immigration Table and World Relief, found widespread support for immigration reform.

“Evangelicals are united in their desire for significant immigration reform,” said Scott McConnell, vice president of LifeWay Research.

A number of high-profile evangelical groups have promoted immigration reform in recent years, including the National Association of Evangelicals and the National Latino Evangelical Coalition. Many evangelical pastors also support reform.

A November 2014 LifeWay Research study found many pastors want a mix of justice and mercy when it comes to immigration. More than half (54 percent) support a path to citizenship. Most (91 percent) evangelical pastors also say the government should stop illegal immigration.

In the February 2015 study, researchers found similar views among all evangelicals.

Nine out of 10 (88 percent) say reform should respect the rule of law and secure the national borders (86 percent). 

Protect the unity of families

They also want to protect the unity of immigrant families (72 percent) and to respect people’s God-given dignity (82 percent).

More than two-thirds (68 percent) of evangelicals say it is important for Congress to take action on immigration reform this year, and half (50 percent) are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports border security and citizenship.

“Evangelicals care about immigrants and want immigration reform,” said Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals. “We pray for Congress to stop waiting and start legislating.”

Researchers found some differences by age and ethnicity among evangelicals.

Those over age 64 (84 percent) are more likely to want Congress to act than those 18 to 34 (59 percent). Those 18 to 34 are more likely (72 percent) to say reform should include a path to citizenship.

Hispanic evangelicals (79 percent) are more likely than white evangelicals (54 percent) to support a path to citizenship.

Some evangelicals are uneasy about the number of recent immigrants to the United States, according to the survey.

Almost half (48 percent) say immigrants drain the country’s economic resources.

About a quarter (22 percent) say immigrants are a threat to law and order. One in five believe immigrants threaten traditional American customs and culture.

A chance to exhibit love

Other evangelicals view immigration as a chance to love immigrants (40 percent) and or to share Jesus with newcomers (42 percent).

Few evangelicals say their faith directly shapes their views about immigration.

Researchers asked evangelicals to list which factor has most influenced their beliefs about immigration. About one in 10 (12 percent) chose the Bible, and only 2 percent named their church.

Among other influences—relationships with immigrants (17 percent), friends and family (16 percent) and the media (16 percent).

LifeWay Research also found many churches don’t talk about immigration, and few take action on this issue. Two-thirds of evangelicals (68 percent) say their church has never encouraged them to reach out to immigrants.

‘Turn off TV, open the Bible’

Still, evangelicals are interested in what their faith says on this topic. About half (53 percent) are familiar with the Bible’s teaching about immigrants. Two-thirds (68 percent) say they’d value hearing a sermon about the Bible’s views on immigration.

“The sad part of this research on immigration is that American evangelicals are more influenced by the media than by their Bibles and their churches combined,” Anderson said. “We need to turn off our TVs and open up our Bibles.”

Researchers used a demographically balanced online panel to interview American adults Feb. 17-27. Quotas were used to balance gender, ethnicity, age, region and education. Researchers screened respondents to include only those who identify themselves as an evangelical, born-again or fundamentalist Christian, and the resulting report refers to all these as “evangelicals.” The completed sample is 1,000 surveys.

WASHINGTON (BNG)—A Baptist religious liberty group urged the U.S. Supreme Court to allow a Muslim woman to wear a religious head-covering to work.

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, a Washington-based organization committed to religious freedom and the separation of church and state, joined religious and civil-liberties groups siding with a Muslim teenager denied a retail job at Abercrombie & Fitch because of her hijab, a headscarf she believes her faith requires her to wear.

Holly HollmanHolly Hollman, general counsel for the BJC, which filed a legal brief in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, said religious belief should not disqualify anyone from employment.

“In many employment contexts, an individual’s religious needs can be met more easily than an employer first assumes,” Hollman said. “This case is about making sure prospective employees are not categorically disqualified from work opportunities based upon religion.”

In 2008, Samantha Elauf, a 17-year-old Palestinian-American, interviewed for a job at an Abercrombie Kids Store in Tulsa, Okla., while wearing her hijab. She wasn’t hired, because a store supervisor said the headscarf violated the company’s “look policy,” which forbids sales staff from wearing hats or black clothing.

Accomodation of religion

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit on her behalf, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to “accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”

Elauf won her case in a federal district court, but the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision. The BJC joined more than a dozen religious liberty and civil rights organizations in a U.S. Supreme Court brief, saying the appellate court’s decision “is likely to have profound and far-reaching impacts on a wide variety of religiously observant employees and applicants” and “will too often force them to choose, unnecessarily, between a job and their faith.”

After oral arguments before the Supreme Court Feb. 25, Elauf thanked the EEOC for taking her case. 

“I am not only standing up for myself, but for all people who wish to adhere to their faith while at work,” she said. “Observance of my faith should not prevent me from getting a job.”

The ‘burden to explain’

The appeals court said Elauf likely qualified for a religious accommodation to the no-hats rule, but the burden was on her to explain that she wore the head-covering for religious reasons rather than style.

The BJC brief said it should have been obvious to store managers it was a religious head-covering, and the person conducting the interview was in a better position to know company policy than a 17-year-old job applicant.

Eric Baxter, senior counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which also filed a brief on Elauf’s behalf, said employees “shouldn’t have to wear a sign that says, ‘I’m religious’ before they are protected by our civil rights laws that prohibit religious discrimination.”

A ruling in the case is expected in June.

PHILADELPHIA (BNG)—A federal appeals court ruled accommodations in the Affordable Care Act are adequate to protect the religious freedom rights of employers who do not qualify for exemptions but who object to contraception coverage in worker insurance plans on religious grounds.

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed injunctions by two lower courts. The previous rulings prevented the federal government from forcing religious nonprofits and schools to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives in student and employee health care plans or to certify they object to the services on moral grounds.

Once the employers advise the government they will not pay for contraception, responsibility for coverage for those services shifts to a separate insurance issuer or a third-party administrator. No premium or fee on the group health plan or plan participants and beneficiaries is imposed.

‘Burdensome’ requirement

The faith-based organizations contended the requirement to register their intent not to participate in contraceptive coverage not only was burdensome, but also resulted in giving workers access to forms of birth control that prevent pregnancy after conception, makes the employers complicit in killing human life.

A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. Justices reasoned the act of stating on a self-certification form employers object on religious grounds to providing such coverage “is a declaration that they will not be complicit in providing coverage.”

The act of opting out does not facilitate the provision of contraceptive coverage by third parties, the court concluded. Instead, the third parties providing coverage do so as a result of legal obligations imposed by the Affordable Care Act.

The court further rejected the argument that automatically exempting religious employers while requiring faith-based colleges and hospitals to self-report divides “good works” or “faith-in-action” employers from “house-of-worship employers” and entitling the burden-free exercise of religion by one group and not the other.

Distinction same as one used by the IRS

The appellate court responded the distinction used by the Obama administration is the same one used by the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS allows religious employers like churches and their integrated auxiliaries to enjoy tax advantages over other entities without being thought to violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

The appeals court decision agreed with earlier findings of the 6th, 7th and District of Columbia circuits.

GuideStone Christian Resources, insurer for the Southern Baptist Convention, won an injunction preventing the government from enforcing the contraceptive mandate in December 2013. That ruling is under appeal in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

NASHVILLE, Tenn.—As President Obama seeks to ramp up military action against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State or ISIS, Americans remain uneasy over the place of Islam in the United States and in the world.

More than a third—37 percent—say they are worried about Sharia law, an Islamic legal and moral code, being applied in America.

More than one-fourth —27 percent—believe the terrorist group ISIS reflects the true nature of Islam, while 43 percent believe Islam can create a peaceful society.

More than three-quarters of Protestant senior pastors—76 percent—say they support military action against ISIS.

Those are among the results of two surveys of 1,000 Americans each, along with a survey of 1,000 senior pastors of Protestant churches, from Nashville-based LifeWay Research.

“ISIS has stirred an odd religious debate in America today,” said Ed Stetzer, executive director of LifeWay Research. “In a nation that has long espoused religious freedom, Americans are thinking long and hard about the kind of society Islam fosters—especially the more radical groups that say they are Islamic—and whether Sharia law would ever be adopted here.”

Terror attacks and concept of Islam

A terrorist attack on a satirical magazine in Paris last month and the rise of ISIS have renewed concerns over extremist versions of Islam. ISIS fighters executed numerous prisoners over the past year, most recently a pilot from Jordan and a Japanese journalist. A young American aid worker also died recently after being kidnapped by ISIS, and the group has terrorized civilians in large swaths of Syria and northern Iraq.

Since last year, the U.S. military has helped conduct air strikes against ISIS. President Obama and other U.S. leaders have argued the group—also know as ISIL—is a terrorist organization, not a religious group.

“Now let’s make two things clear,” the president said in a Sept. 10, 2014, address to the nation. “ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents.”

Many Americans reject that view. About half—48 percent—disagree with the statement, “ISIS is not Islamic.” More than one in five—22 percent—agree, while three in 10 are not sure.

But few Americans believe ISIS reflects what a society shaped by Islam looks like. About a quarter—27 percent—agree with the statement, “ISIS is a true indication of what Islam looks like when Islam controls a society.” Close to half—47 percent—disagree, and 26 percent are not sure.

Pastors support military action

LifeWay Research also surveyed 1,000 Protestant senior pastors about Islam and ISIS. Researchers found widespread support for military action against ISIS.

Three-fourths of pastors—76 percent—say, “Air strikes against ISIS are needed to protect Christians in Syria and Iraq.” Only 13 percent disagree.

Support of airstrikes was similar among white (76 percent), African-American (75 percent), evangelical (79 percent) and Mainline (71 percent) pastors. Two-thirds of younger pastors—those 18 to 44—support the air strikes, as do 85 percent of pastors over 65.

Stetzer believes the overwhelming support from Protestant pastors will bolster President Obama’s case for more military action against ISIS.

“Pastors and Americans are clearly behind greater military engagement,” he said.

Pastors, researchers found, also are critical about the nature of Islam, with 61 percent of 

Protestant senior pastors disagreeing with the statement, “True Islam creates a peaceful society.” Three in 10 agree. African-American pastors (50 percent) are more likely to say Islam can create a peaceful society than white pastors (30 percent).

Less than one-fourth—23 percent—of evangelical pastors agree, but that number jumps to 42 percent for Mainline pastors.

Pastors are split on whether ISIS gives a true indication of what an Islamic society looks like, with 45 percent agreeing and 47 percent disagreeing.

Evangelical and mainline pastors also are divided on this question. About half of evangelicals—51 percent—agree, but a little more than a third—36 percent—of mainliners agree.

Americans have varied views of Islam

Overall, LifeWay Research found American views about Islam are split along demographic lines, with older Americans more skeptical of Islam than younger Americans.

That’s especially true in the case of Sharia law. Overall, more than one-third—37 percent—of Americans are worried about Sharia law being applied in the United States.That includes 47 percent of those over 45. Only about a quarter—27 percent—of those 18 to 44 worry about Sharia.

Americans also are divided over how peaceful Islam is at heart, with 43 percent who agree with the statement, “True Islam creates a peaceful society.” A similar number—39 percent—disagree, and 18 percent are unsure.

More than half—52 percent—of younger Americans, age 18 to 34, say Islam can create a peaceful society. By contrast, 40 percent of those 35 and older say Islam can create a peaceful society.

Demographic differences

LifeWay Research also found other demographic differences in how Americans see Islam.

Women (42 percent) are more likely to worry about Sharia law than men (33 percent). They are also less likely (19 percent) to agree ISIS is not Islamic than men (26 percent).

While half of evangelicals—51 percent—worry about Sharia, only 34 percent of Catholics or 21 percent of Nones—those with no religious preference—share their concerns.

Evangelicals are particularly skeptical about Islam’s role in public life. Only a third  agree true Islam creates a peaceful society. Catholics (49 percent) and Nones (47 percent) are more likely to see a positive role for Islam.

“Every religion has a broad spectrum of groups that fall under their umbrella,” said Stetzer. “Who is mainstream or extreme, who is orthodox or heretical is often a topic of fierce debate.”

Survey methodology

Researchers conducted phone surveys of Americans Sept. 19 to Oct. 5, 2014. The calling utilized Random Digit Dialing. Sixty percent of completes were among landlines and 40 percent among cell phones. Maximum quotas and slight weights were used for gender, region, age, ethnicity and education to reflect the population more accurately. 

The completed sample for all questions is 1,000 surveys. The sample provides 95 percent confidence that the sampling error does not exceed plus or minus 3.5 percent. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.

The phone survey of Protestant pastors was conducted Sept. 11-18, 2014. The calling list was a stratified random sample drawn from a list of all Protestant churches. Each interview was conducted with the senior pastor, minister or priest of the church called. Responses were weighted by region to reflect the population more accurately. The completed sample is 1,000 surveys. The sample provides 95 percent confidence that the sampling error does not exceed plus or minus 3.1 percent. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Religious and secular advocacy groups jointly called for greater clarity by the Internal Revenue Service regarding nonprofits and political activity.

In a rare combined front, leaders of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, Alliance Defending Freedom, Public Citizen and the Center for American Progress met at the National Press Club to discuss how the tax agency could help nonprofits know what they can and cannot do under the law.

Michael Batts, who chaired a commission of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability that recommended Internal Revenue Service policy changes, speaks at the National Press Club on Jan. 29, 2015. Behind him is Ezra Reese, a member of the drafting committee of Public Citizen’s Bright Lines Project. (RNS photo by Adelle M. Banks)“Something needs to change,” said Dan Busby, president of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. “We agree that clear and brighter lines must be adopted.”

In 2013, an ECFA-appointed commission issued a 91-page report recommending clergy should be able to say “whatever they believe is appropriate” from the pulpit without fear of IRS reprisal. Current IRS rules, dating to 1954, permit clergy to address issues but prohibit candidate endorsements.

But those rules are broken routinely, with little or no consequence.

Michael Batts, who chaired the ECFA’s Commission on Accountability and Policy for Religious Organizations, said the IRS should hesitate to enforce some of its current rules, which could cause constitutional and public relations problems.

“The IRS itself needs an exit strategy, and churches and charities need freedom of speech and the freedom to exercise religion,” he said.

Erik Stanley, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom, talks about the need for legislative fixes for Internal Revenue Service policy at the National Press Club on Jan. 29, 2015. (RNS photo by Adelle M. Banks)Erik Stanley, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom, said IRS laws about “indirect” campaigning are too vague, and the IRS is not enforcing its rules about direct campaigning. About 4,000 “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” pastors have self-reported to the IRS they have talked about candidates, often supporting or opposing particular ones, during a worship service, he added.

“There’s been no prosecutions to date,” he said, noting legislative fixes are needed for IRS policy.

The IRS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In 2013, a Treasury Department inspector general determined the IRS used “inappropriate criteria” when questioning some applications for tax-exempt status by Tea Party and other groups. Evangelist Franklin Graham complained when the organizations he leads—the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse—were audited after the BGEA ran election-related ads.

Although all the groups at the Press Club event agreed on the need for more clarity from the IRS, they differ in the specifics of how its rules should be changed.

Ezra Reese, a member of the drafting committee of Public Citizen’s Bright Lines Project, worried some nonprofits might take advantage of rules supported by the ECFA to fund more issue-oriented ads.

“You will have a much larger amount of tax-deductible dollars influencing elections,” he said.

But differences aside, the lack of clarity is creating confusion for a range of nonprofits, said Alex DeMots, vice president and deputy general counsel for the Center for American Progress.

“It’s just bad public policy for a small charity or church or community organization to have to hire a lawyer to figure out what it can and can’t do,” he said.

Abortion opponents—marking the annual March for Life in Washington and anticipating legislative gains in the Republican-dominated Congress—were thrown into disarray when GOP leaders unexpectedly withdrew an anti-abortion bill they considered a done deal.

The bill, called the “Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” would have banned abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. But concerns over restrictive language on rape exceptions and a potential backlash from women and younger voters prompted about two dozen House Republicans, mainly women, to press party leaders to drop the bill.

The sudden reversal stunned abortion foes. They expected to celebrate House passage of the bill during their annual demonstration against the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion.

Instead, they were left wondering about the once-promising future of their agenda and organizing protests at the offices of House members they feel betrayed them.

“I am disgusted by this act of moral cowardice,” Russell Moore, head of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, wrote. “If the House Republicans cannot pass something as basic as restricting the abortion of five-month, pain-capable unborn children, what can they get done?”

“The Republicans in Congress should come and explain this atrocity to the hundreds of thousands of people gathering here in the nation’s capital to march for life,” Moore said.

Some GOP leaders tried to reassure Christian conservatives the bill that could be tweaked and might return in another form.

Religious liberty advocates said a U.S. Supreme Court decision Jan. 20 affirming a devout Muslim prisoner’s right to grow a beard for religious reasons is a win for the religious liberty of all Americans.

Gregory Holt. (Photo courtesy of Religion & Ethics Newsweekly, via Arkansas Corrections)The unanimous decision written by Justice Samuel Alito says an Arkansas Department of Corrections policy prohibiting inmates to grow beards except for medical reasons does not satisfy demands of a federal law that prohibits a state or local government from substantially burdening the religious exercise of institutionalized persons without a compelling interest and by the least restrictive means.

The case argued in October, Holt v. Hobbs, pitted the religious freedom of Arkansas inmate Gregory Holt, also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad, against security concerns about prisoners hiding contraband in prison or avoiding capture if they escape and change their appearance quickly by shaving off their facial hair.

Holt claimed his religion teaches men should not cut their beards at all but offered a compromise of keeping his trimmed to one-half inch in length. The policy allows for beards of one-quarter inch if there is a skin problem that would be aggravated by shaving.

Lower courts said a half-inch beard did not appear to pose a major concern but decided to defer to prison officials in matters of security and control of inmate populations. Alito, however, said the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 does not allow such “unquestioning acceptance” of policies that infringe on religious liberty.

Failed to prove ‘compelling interest’

While recognizing the state has a compelling interest in regulating contraband, the justices said the Department of Corrections failed to prove the grooming policy furthers that interest. They said the department could not demonstrate why a one-half-inch beard for religious reasons is more significantly more dangerous than a quarter-inch-beard for medical reasons, nor explain why there isn’t a similar restriction on hair length, which likely is a better place to hide a weapon or drugs and could also be cut off to quickly alter appearance in the event of escape.

Even if prison officials had met that burden, the justices said, a complete ban on facial hair is not the least restrictive means of furthering those interests. Prisons could, for example, photograph prisoners clean-shaven when they enter prison and then later take another photo showing how they look both with and without facial hair.

Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and co-counsel in the case, called the Supreme Court ruling “a huge win for religious freedom and for all Americans.”

Victory ‘for every American’

“What the Supreme Court said today was that government officials cannot impose arbitrary restrictions on religious liberty just because they think government knows best,” Rassbach said. “This is a victory not just for one prisoner in Arkansas, but for every American who believes and wants the freedom to act on those beliefs.”

Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said the Supreme Court did the right thing in the case.

“Religious liberty isn’t a prize earned by those with the most political clout,” Moore said. “Religious liberty is a right given by God to all people. The court here respected liberty of conscience and free exercise.”

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, which worked with dozens of religious and civil liberties organizations to secure passage of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act 15 years ago, also signed a brief siding with the Muslim prisoner in May.

“Everyone’s religious liberty is precious, but that of incarcerated persons is particularly fragile,” said Brent Walker, executive director of the BJC. “Both RLUIPA and the court’s opinion appropriately balance that right with the need of penal institutions to preserve prison safety and security.”

In its friend-of-the-court brief with the American Jewish Committee and three other organizations, the Baptist Joint Committee said part of the law’s intended purpose was to elevate religious needs to a similar level as other considerations.

“In light of the high degree of protection that RLUIPA gives to inmates’ religious rights, it is illogical for the same institution to provide an almost identical accommodation for medical reasons, while denying that same accommodation for religious purposes,” the filing said.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to resolve the national debate over same-sex marriage once and for all.

The justices will consider four cases from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. They will be consolidated and heard together.

The court likely will hear oral arguments in April and issue a ruling before its term ends in late June.

A split among federal appellate courts forced the justices’ hands after the federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld marriage bans in those four states last November. While homosexuals can marry in 36 states, the practice is banned in those four states, along with 10 others.

Russell Moore, head of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said the court’s ruling “could potentially transform the cultural landscape of America.” The court sidestepped the issue in October, when it let stand appeals court rulings striking down gay-marriage bans in Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma and Utah. Those rulings and a later appeals court decision affecting Idaho and Nevada drew in neighboring states as well. As a result, more than 70 percent of Americans live in states where gay marriages are legal, and thousands of couples have tied the knot.

Russell Moore, head of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, predicted a far-ranging outcome.

“This case could potentially transform the cultural landscape of America,” Moore said in an ERLC release. “We should pray for the court, that they will not seek to redefine marriage. Marriage was not created by government action and shouldn’t be re-created by government action.

“Even more than that, we should pray for churches who will know how to articulate and embody a Christian vision of marriage as the one-flesh union of a man and a woman in the tumultuous years to come.”

Both sides happy, for now

The high court’s long-awaited decision to intervene pleases both sides in the debate. National gay-rights groups have been pressing for a 50-state solution. The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes gay and lesbian unions, also wanted the court to step in.

The new challenge is destined to become even more of a landmark case than those decided by the court in 2013—United States v. Windsor, which forced the federal government to recognize gay marriages, and Hollingsworth v. Perry, which made California the 13th state to allow them.

Those rulings, while historic, did not resolve the threshold questions in the debate—whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, or whether states have the right to ban the practice.

Justices remain divided

Since the gay-marriage movement gained steam in the 1990s, 30 states have passed constitutional bans. Eleven states and the District of Columbia legalized same-sex marriage by legislative action or voter initiatives. In 33 more states, judges have made the same call, although some of those decisions were delayed or overruled.

Most of the progress by gay-rights groups has come in the last two years: The number of states where gays and lesbians can marry has nearly doubled since October and tripled since the court’s 2013 rulings.

The justices appear as split today as they were then, when Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the 5-4 decision striking down a key part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia predicted it would lead to exactly what has happened since—a flurry of court rulings using the high court’s equal protection reasoning to strike down state bans.

But while divided, the justices have made a series of procedural moves that allowed same-sex marriage to proliferate, particularly by refusing to hear five states’ appeals in October. They even refused to halt gay and lesbian marriages in Idaho while the state challenges the verdict of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals—something they did last year in Utah and Virginia.

The swing vote remains Kennedy, who has written the last three major rulings advancing the cause of gay rights. On one hand, he has defended voter-approved constitutional amendments, most recently in a Michigan case last year that upheld the state’s ban against racial preferences in university admissions. But he struck down the federal same-sex marriage ban as an affront to the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.

Pivotal question: Equal protection

Since then, dozens of federal and state court judges have toppled marriage bans for the same reason the Supreme Court ruled against the Defense of Marriage Act, mostly citing gay and lesbian couples’ right to equal protection or due process under the Constitution. Since September, however, three federal courts have gone the other way—in Louisiana, Puerto Rico and the four-state 6th Circuit.

Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton issued that 42-page appellate decision, with fellow GOP nominee Deborah Cook concurring. He said lower court judges’ hands are tied by a one-sentence Supreme Court ruling in 1972 that “upheld the right of the people of a state to define marriage as they see it.”

In response, couples in all four states asked the Supreme Court to hear their appeals. State officials in Michigan, Ohio and Kentucky, though victorious, agreed the justices should weigh in. Gay couples and state officials in Louisiana sought to have their case considered before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rules, but the justices denied that request.

Other states where same-sex marriage remains illegal include Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Texas.