HAF Commends Supreme Court's Affirmation of National Marriage Equality

Washington, D.C. (June 26, 2015) - The Hindu American Foundation (HAF) celebrated the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges to recognize that the Constitution forbids state governments from denying the rights of marriage to same sex couples. Over the past few years, HAF joined numerous amicus briefs at the Supreme Court and lower court levels supporting marriage equality.

“Today is a great day for all Americans who will have the dignity of marriage, regardless of where they live or who they love,” noted Harsh Voruganti, HAF’s Associate Director of Public Policy. “The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces HAF’s stance throughout this case: that the Constitution does not permit governments to deny marriage to same sex couples.”

Today’s decision was the culmination of a dramatic turnaround in both popular opinion and legal recognition of same sex marriage. Ten years ago, only Massachusetts recognized same sex marriage, while the majority of other states had passed constitutional amendments prohibiting any official recognition of same sex relationships. Today’s decision renders those amendments unenforceable.

HAF, along with a broad coalition of religious and secular groups, joined amicus efforts supporting marriage equality. HAF successfully joined amicus briefs supporting LGBT rights in U.S. v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry before joining the effort on Obergefell.  

“HAF’s work on this issue is consistent with our view that Hinduism provides no spiritual basis to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity,” noted Swaminathan Venkataraman, a member of HAF’s Executive Council and the primary author of HAF’s Hinduism and Homosexuality policy

Catholic League

Gay Marriage Ruling Is Ominous

June 26, 2015

Bill Donohue comments on the Supreme Court decision declaring same-sex marriage a constitutional right:
 
Once again, five Supreme Court justices have invented a right that is nowhere mentioned or implied in the U.S. Constitution. Instead of allowing the states the right to make decisions about marriage, these judges have elected to impose their will on the nation.
 
Moreover, their reasoning is sociologically illiterate. The idea that marriage is a matter of individual autonomy—and not a social institution—is the most profound flaw in their ruling. In their mind, society is composed of monads.
 
For people of faith, this decision is ominous. On p. 27, the majority declares that religious Americans "may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned." It is nice to know they respect our First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
 
"The First Amendment," the five justices say, "ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives...." That's the best they can do? Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent, rightly criticizes this genuflection to religious rights. "Religious liberty," he says, "is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally"—it is not confined to advocacy.
 
In order to stop the IRS from revoking the tax-exempt status of religious institutions that refuse to marry two men or two women, Congress needs to pass the First Amendment Defense Act that was introduced last week. Nothing less is acceptable.