If Neely’s Rights Are Not Protected, Whose Are?

Long before Wyoming became a state, the U. S. Constitution declared, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free  exercise thereof.” 

Wyoming’s Constitution likewise is designed to “secure ...our civil, political and religious  liberties” (Preamble). So it declares: “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall be forever guaranteed in this state, and no person shall be rendered  incompetent to hold any office of trust or profit, or to serve as a witness or juror, because of  his opinion on any matter of religious belief whatever.” 

These protections were created for people like Ruth Neely.

Mrs. Neely has served as the municipal judge in Pinedale for more than 21 years. In that position, she has served the people of Pinedale with a servant’s heart. She has a record, not only of fairness, but of compassionate problem solving. If you want compassion and common sense in our legal system, Judge Neely is for you.

Consider the time she learned that one of two parole violators was totally illiterate. Filled with compassion and creativity, she gave the young partners in crime an opportunity to shorten their jail time by the one teaching the other to read. In a short time, one young man was given a gift that the system had failed to give. A life was changed in Neely’s courtroom.

But now Wyoming’s Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics (CJCE) wants her fired. Her crime? She honestly answered a reporter who asked if she was “excited” to perform same sex marriages. Like most Americans, she has always believed that marriage is about one man and one woman. She believes that children thrive best when they are raised by the two people who conceived them. 

Not long ago, “tolerance” was on bumper stickers everywhere. Today, it is in short supply. Social media is filled with trolls who spew blasphemies and hateful speech to silence and intimidate anyone who dares to advocate basic morality. But today in Wyoming, we are seeing a whole new ball game. Now it is not just an anonymous troll but an entire government commission trying to drive certain religions out of public life. No matter whether you’re religious or not Ruth Neely’s story is chilling.

When Ned Donovan asked a loaded question to Ruth Neely, he knew full well of her Christian beliefs on marriage. That was not news to anyone in Pinedale. But he used the power of the press to place her in an impossible situation. He promised to spike the “story” if she would promise to act against her conscience. When she did not, the story became the excuse for an investigation and a prosecution of Judge Neely lasting over a year. 

Still to this day, nobody has filed a complaint against her. Nevertheless, in a hearing last December, Pat Dixon, the lawyer for the CJCE, said of her commonsense Christian beliefs, “Personally, I find the position of the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church, which is the opposite of the other synods of the Lutheran Church -- I find that every bit as repugnant as I found the Mormon Church's position on black people” (CJCE Hearing, 12-4-15). Then, his closing remarks at their most recent hearing were, “I submit to you that somebody with that attitude really should not be on the bench” (CJCE Hearing, 2-19-16). 

These are breathtaking statements. As an officer of the state of Wyoming, not only is he insulting two widely different faiths in a single breath, he is also willing to punish one synod of Lutheranism while praising “the opposite synods.” As a pastor of the Missouri Synod, what should I conclude about his own open bias? This is what the Establishment Clause was meant to prevent! 

But, of course, this really isn’t about a single denomination. It’s not even about Christianity in general. Rather, the state of Wyoming is favoring a new religious belief about humanity while rejecting the unanimous belief of ALL major religions held in unison for millennia.
Equally chilling is that fact that the Commission wants to disqualify Judge Neely from being the city judge of Pinedale even though she has no marriage authority in that position. The CJCE unreasonably claims that her life-long beliefs suddenly make her incapable of fairly applying traffic laws and jay-walking ordinances.

But what about her marriage authority as circuit magistrate? Doesn’t her admission that she can’t perform same-sex ceremonies disqualify her? This sounds like a solid argument until you actually read Wyoming Statute 20-1-106, “Who may solemnize marriage?” 

It says, “Every district or circuit court judge, district court commissioner, supreme court justice, magistrate and every licensed or ordained minister of the gospel, bishop, priest or rabbi, or other qualified person acting in accordance with the traditions or rites for the solemnization of marriage of any religion, denomination or religious society, may perform the ceremony of  marriage in this state.” 

That’s it. That’s the only applicable law here.

This law authorizes hundreds, if not thousands of people across the state to solemnize marriages. And if that’s weren’t enough, it even allows for practically anybody else to be given authorization for a special occasion. 

The law is deliberately so broad that nobody is forced to be married by anyone they don’t want to ask, and nobody is forced to perform any marriage they are not “excited” to perform. 

Twice, our lawmakers used the word, “may,” not “must.” Our elected representatives wisely wrote a law that allows anyone to get married without infringing on the free speech of anyone authorized to do it. The reason is clear. Wyoming wants to avoid forcing any ministers, bishops, priests or rabbis to act against their religious convictions. And they wanted judges and magistrates to have the same protections.

Marriage is a religious matter, as even Mr. Kerry Drake admitted (Drake’s Take, 5-13-16). He thinks it’s Ruth Neely’s obligation to “sanctify any same-sex marriage.” 

These are religious words with specific content. It is not just that Drake and the Commission want same sex couples to be married—that would be easy. They also want all people, regardless of religion, to make or declare such marriages “holy.” This is consistent with what the CJCE said in the Feb. 19 hearing. They claimed the Commission is “fighting a holy war” on behalf of Wyoming’s taxpayers. 

Mrs. Neely, and millions of Christians with her, decline to call something holy just because the state establishes it as the new religion. Now the CJCE thinks it is doing God a service to use your tax dollars to persecute her. If the Wyoming Supreme Court agrees with the commission’s recommendation, it would communicate to the public that some professions are off limits for people who hold certain religious beliefs—a profoundly demeaning message to people of faith who share those convictions. 

If Judge Neely’s rights are not secured today, our Constitutional protections have become meaningless and no one’s liberty will long endure. The Supreme Court of Wyoming will soon have the opportunity to reject the commission’s prosecution of Judge Neely and reaffirm that, in this country, speaking about one’s religious beliefs does not disqualify a person from holding public office.

If Neely's Rights Are Not Protected, Whose Are?

Ruth Neely, Pinedale, Wyoming

Long before Wyoming became a state, the U. S. Constitution declared, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free  exercise thereof.”

Wyoming’s Constitution likewise is designed to “secure ...our civil, political and religious  liberties” (Preamble). So it declares: “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall be forever guaranteed in this state, and no person shall be rendered  incompetent to hold any office of trust or profit, or to serve as a witness or juror, because of  his opinion on any matter of religious belief whatever.”

These protections were created for people like Ruth Neely.

Mrs. Neely has served as the municipal judge in Pinedale for more than 21 years. In that position, she has served the people of Pinedale with a servant’s heart. She has a record, not only of fairness, but of compassionate problem solving. If you want compassion and common sense in our legal system, Judge Neely is for you.

Consider the time she learned that one of two parole violators was totally illiterate. Filled with compassion and creativity, she gave the young partners in crime an opportunity to shorten their jail time by the one teaching the other to read. In a short time, one young man was given a gift that the system had failed to give. A life was changed in Neely’s courtroom.

But now Wyoming’s Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics (CJCE) wants her fired. Her crime? She honestly answered a reporter who asked if she was “excited” to perform same sex marriages. Like most Americans, she has always believed that marriage is about one man and one woman. She believes that children thrive best when they are raised by the two people who conceived them.

Not long ago, “tolerance” was on bumper stickers everywhere. Today, it is in short supply. Social media is filled with trolls who spew blasphemies and hateful speech to silence and intimidate anyone who dares to advocate basic morality. But today in Wyoming, we are seeing a whole new ball game. Now it is not just an anonymous troll but an entire government commission trying to drive certain religions out of public life. No matter whether you’re religious or not Ruth Neely’s story is chilling.

Ned Donavan

When Ned Donovan asked a loaded question to Ruth Neely, he knew full well of her Christian beliefs on marriage. That was not news to anyone in Pinedale. But he used the power of the press to place her in an impossible situation. He promised to spike the “story” if she would promise to act against her conscience. When she did not, the story became the excuse for an investigation and a prosecution of Judge Neely lasting over a year.

Still to this day, nobody has filed a complaint against her. Nevertheless, in a hearing last December, Pat Dixon, the lawyer for the CJCE, said of her commonsense Christian beliefs, “Personally, I find the position of the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church, which is the opposite of the other synods of the Lutheran Church -- I find that every bit as repugnant as I found the Mormon Church's position on black people” (CJCE Hearing, 12-4-15). Then, his closing remarks at their most recent hearing were, “I submit to you that somebody with that attitude really should not be on the bench” (CJCE Hearing, 2-19-16).

Pat Dixon

These are breathtaking statements. As an officer of the state of Wyoming, not only is he insulting two widely different faiths in a single breath, he is also willing to punish one synod of Lutheranism while praising “the opposite synods.” As a pastor of the Missouri Synod, what should I conclude about his own open bias? This is what the Establishment Clause was meant to prevent!

But, of course, this really isn’t about a single denomination. It’s not even about Christianity in general. Rather, the state of Wyoming is favoring a new religious belief about humanity while rejecting the unanimous belief of ALL major religions held in unison for millennia.

Equally chilling is that fact that the Commission wants to disqualify Judge Neely from being the city judge of Pinedale even though she has no marriage authority in that position. The CJCE unreasonably claims that her life-long beliefs suddenly make her incapable of fairly applying traffic laws and jay-walking ordinances.

But what about her marriage authority as circuit magistrate? Doesn’t her admission that she can’t perform same-sex ceremonies disqualify her? This sounds like a solid argument until you actually read Wyoming Statute 20-1-106, “Who may solemnize marriage?”

It says, “Every district or circuit court judge, district court commissioner, supreme court justice, magistrate and every licensed or ordained minister of the gospel, bishop, priest or rabbi, or other qualified person acting in accordance with the traditions or rites for the solemnization of marriage of any religion, denomination or religious society, may perform the ceremony of  marriage in this state.”

That’s it. That’s the only applicable law here.

This law authorizes hundreds, if not thousands of people across the state to solemnize marriages. And if that’s weren’t enough, it even allows for practically anybody else to be given authorization for a special occasion.

The law is deliberately so broad that nobody is forced to be married by anyone they don’t want to ask, and nobody is forced to perform any marriage they are not “excited” to perform.

Twice, our lawmakers used the word, “may,” not “must.” Our elected representatives wisely wrote a law that allows anyone to get married without infringing on the free speech of anyone authorized to do it. The reason is clear. Wyoming wants to avoid forcing any ministers, bishops, priests or rabbis to act against their religious convictions. And they wanted judges and magistrates to have the same protections.

Marriage is a religious matter, as even Mr. Kerry Drake admitted (Drake’s Take, 5-13-16). He thinks it’s Ruth Neely’s obligation to “sanctify any same-sex marriage.”

Kerry Drake

These are religious words with specific content. It is not just that Drake and the Commission want same sex couples to be married—that would be easy. They also want all people, regardless of religion, to make or declare such marriages “holy.” This is consistent with what the CJCE said in the Feb. 19 hearing. They claimed the Commission is “fighting a holy war” on behalf of Wyoming’s taxpayers.

Mrs. Neely, and millions of Christians with her, decline to call something holy just because the state establishes it as the new religion. Now the CJCE thinks it is doing God a service to use your tax dollars to persecute her. If the Wyoming Supreme Court agrees with the commission’s recommendation, it would communicate to the public that some professions are off limits for people who hold certain religious beliefs—a profoundly demeaning message to people of faith who share those convictions.

If Judge Neely’s rights are not secured today, our Constitutional protections have become meaningless and no one’s liberty will long endure. The Supreme Court of Wyoming will soon have the opportunity to reject the commission’s prosecution of Judge Neely and reaffirm that, in this country, speaking about one’s religious beliefs does not disqualify a person from holding public office.

First Annual WPN Conference

Standing together for Marriage

November 10, 2015

What is Marriage? - Everyone is a proponent of marriage equality. But before we can understand how to treat all marriages equally, it is necessary to know what marriage is. Is there an objective way of answering that question? Does it matter? Ryan addresses these questions as he digests the book that he co-authored with Robert P. George and Sherif Girgas.

After Obergefell - Now that Obergefell v. Hodges has opened the door to nation-wide same sex "marriage," what will be the consequences for America? In this presentation, Anderson discusses religious liberty as a concept. Then briefs us on various cases before the courts today.

Four Lessons from the Pro-Life Movement - In his final presentation of the day, Ryan previews a book he is currently writing that discusses how modern marriage defenders can take up the lessons learned from the 42 years of experience in defending human life after Roe v. Wade.



PRESENTER

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is the William E. Simon senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, and the founder and editor of Public Discourse, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, New Jersey.

He is the author of When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment and Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, and he is the co-author of What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense and Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination.
Anderson’s research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, in two Supreme Court cases.

He received his bachelor of arts degree from Princeton University, graduating Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude, and he received his doctoral degree in political philosophy from the University of Notre Dame. His dissertation was titled: “Neither Liberal Nor Libertarian: A Natural Law Approach to Social Justice and Economic Rights.”

Anderson has made appearances on ABC, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, and Fox News. His work has appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, the Harvard Health Policy Review, the Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy, the Weekly Standard, and National Review.

He is a member of the James Madison Society at Princeton University, a Fellow of the Institute for Human Ecology at the Catholic University of America, and a Visiting Fellow at the Veritas Center at Franciscan University.

Follow him on Twitter at @RyanTAnd and for his latest essays and videos you can follow his public Facebook page.

The NCAA's Silent Sermon

Early Sunday morning, July 22, the church of college football preached a sermon without words. At Penn State University a work crew fenced off, covered, and  then removed a life-sized statue of the winningest coach in the history of college football. Next day, we learned that the removal of this icon of Joe Paterno's achievements foretold the removal of the achievements themselves. In an unprecedented step, the NCAA expunged  fourteen years of his coaching career from the record books. 111 wins are no longer wins. They are, rather, failures. Failure to defend children too weak to defend themselves.

What did Paterno do to deserve such a draconian punishment? Not enough. That's the problem.

Paterno is not a sexual predator by any account. No doubt he would be utterly appalled to learn the results of his inactivity. But that matters nothing to Sandusky's victims. The Louis Freeh Report is unequivocal.

The most saddening finding by the Special Investigative Counsel is the total and consistent disregard by the most senior leaders at Penn State for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's child victims... Four of the most powerful people at the Pennsylvania State University -- President Graham B. Spanier, Senior Vice President-Finance and Business Gary C. Schultz, Athletic Director Timothy M. Curley and Head Football Coach Joseph V. Paterno -- failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade. (p. 14)

As a result, their lives were damaged in irrevocable ways.

By the removal of an icon, the message was articulate and clear. You ARE your brother's keeper. And this silent sermon resonates in every human heart. The details of the punishment may be debated. But the outrage itself is beyond debate. The right thing was left undone. It should have been done. There is no excuse.

All of us are truly saddened. All of us truly hope and pray that the sanctions of the NCAA might help these victims heal a little bit. Finally their screams have been heard. Finally someone stood  up to acknowledge their existence and the pain they have endured in silence. Finally someone has  publicly said: You needed our protection. You deserved our care. We could have protected you. But we  did not. I pray God's peace and blessings on their recovery.

All of us are also looking toward Penn State University. We want them, and college football generally, to learn an important lesson. No entity, no program, no way of life is so important as to absolve  you of your responsibilities to even the smallest person. Mark Emmert, President of the NCAA, made  this plain: “Our goal is to not be just punitive, but to make sure that the university establishes an athletic culture and daily mindset in which football will never again be placed ahead of educating, nurturing, and protecting young people” (Press Conference, July 23).

All of us should also be looking to ourselves. This lesson is not only for programs and institutions. It is a lesson for each and every one of us. You are your brother’s keeper. When your brother needs protection, no social program, no political loyalty, no peer pressure is a legitimate reason to fail him. Whatever the cost, whatever the inconvenience, whatever the sacrifice to success, reputation, friendship or social standing, every human being, no matter how small, is your brother; and you are your brother's keeper.

So, who exactly needs your protecting? Every reader of this column will be able to name certain people smaller, younger, more vulnerable than you. Their cries for help move you to action. There are also the nameless and voiceless. Every day 3500 new victims - people - are killed without being able to scream for help. Ignorance of their names and inability to hear their screams does not lessen our responsibilities. Nor do your personal feelings about abortion matter to the victims. Powerless victims are not helped by your affirmations. They need your voice. They need your care. They need your protection.

When a decade of coaching achievements are counted as nothing, it is a sermon we all must take to heart. To paraphrase Mark Emmert: "Our goal is not to be just punitive, but to make sure that our society establishes a culture and daily mindset in which partisan politics, personal ambition, or peer pressure will never again be placed ahead of defending, caring for, and protecting even the weakest of people."

For Sandusky’s victims, it is too late. Opportunities lost can never be regained. But, by God’s grace, this tragedy can open our eyes to the countless opportunities still before us. It is not too late for these people. We have our voice, we have Jesus’ compassion and, now, we have this lesson to spur us on. Today we see with the clarity of hindsight: Those unable to defend themselves must be defended by those who can. The right thing can be done. It should be done. We have no excuse.

Violence is out of Place in the Sanctuary

Sunday morning in Wichita, Kansas, death intruded into a sacred space and violently took the life of Dr. George Tiller. This is the most recent in a growing line of Church-related shootings. In recent years this scene has become all too familiar to us. After the March attack in Marysville, Illinois, this is now the 21st such shooting in the past decade.

Bewildered, we wonder aloud: is there no place sacred? Is no place safe? But unlike the spate of shootings over the previous decade, this one already is being reported differently. For Dr. George Tiller was a well-known late-term abortion provider.

As I write, no one has been charged with the crime. Nor is any motive, ideology, religion or politics known. But assumptions are already being made and conclusions being drawn. By the time this is printed much more will be known. If the assailant proves to be attached in any way to the pro-life movement, his behavior will paint all who speak in defense of life in the womb.

Although pro-life organizations across the nation immediately denounced the killing and distanced themselves from the perpetrator, leaders of these same organizations are publicly worried that efforts to defend life in the womb will be set back by an unwilling association with one who shares their name.

A movement dedicated to saving life will be tarred as anti-life. Those moved by love to protect the innocent will be called dangerous and hateful. To the extent that these efforts succeed, another sacred place will continue to be invaded by the instruments of death that take the smallest and most defenseless lives.

Nevermind that Reformation Lutheran Church of Wichita is not a member of the Lutheran church body of which I am a pastor. It is still called Lutheran and still called Christian and with that nomenclature, everyone who calls themselves by either of these names will inevitably be painted by association with Dr. Tiller.

While pro-life organizations across the nation distance themselves from the ideology and behavior of the assailant, how will Christians distinguish themselves from the ideology and behavior of the assailed? Does the evil perpetrated against Dr. Tiller now canonize his cause? Are Christians now forbidden to exclude his ideology and behavior from their midst? Or shall we temporarily quiet our objections to abortion and tacitly accept Dr. Tiller as one of our own until this tragedy passes from the headlines?

This I cannot do. For it is especially now in the face of these events that we must speak up against the invasion of all sacred spaces and the taking of any life given by Christ.

This ought not to be a partisan matter nor a denominational affair. For the issues of life and death which concern us today have been addressed by the Scriptures and confessed by the whole Christian Church from the moment of its inception.

One of the very earliest Church documents preserved to us is called the Didache (circa. 50-120). The second chapter of that document treats the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20) and its words are uncannily appropriate to address this confluence of events.

Here the murder of Dr. Tiller is obviously forbidden to Christians and it goes on to state, "thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born." Then, a few lines later and still on the same subject, we read, "Thou shalt not hate any man, but some thou shalt reprove, and for others thou shalt pray, and others thou shalt love more than thy life."

There is no better time than now and no better place than here to say aloud that Christians still believe in and abide by these words. Children are not to be aborted either by the primitive means of the ancient Romans or by the "sophisticated" means of modern physicians.

We are not to hate either Dr. Tiller or his assailant. But they should be reproved by all Christians. We reprove to invite repentance from the way of death that Christ's forgiveness unto life might follow.

We should mourn Dr. Tiller and pray for the assailant and both families. All people—famous or infamous, adult or fetus, right or wrong—should be loved more than your own life. For this is how Christ loves you, giving His own life to rescue you from the way of death.

Let all Christians take up these words as our own. And then, having taken them on our lips, let us remember what the Didache says in the same place: "Thy word shall not be false or empty, but fulfilled by action." This is the way of life—the life which Christ came to give.