By MICHAEL SLOVANOS
THE Human Rights Law Alliance, a group of Christian lawyers fighting a swag of religious freedom and free speech cases in Australia, has welcomed a US Supreme Court ruling against the state of Colorado’s ban on so-called conversion therapy, which is banned in Australia.
Not only is “conversion therapy” banned in at least four Australian states – Queensland, Victoria, NSW and South Australia – and the ACT – but the very act of praying for a homosexual person to be changed, is also “illegal”.
These so-called anti-hate laws are a blatant violation of the spirit and intent of Australia’s Constitutional law, which states in Section 116 “The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”
HRLA says the US Supreme Court has handed down a huge victory for free speech, families, and biological reality. In 2019, the state of Colorado tried to ban so-called “conversion therapy” for minors struggling with same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria.
“In essence, they tried to outlaw Christian counselors like Kaley Chiles from offering the truth of Scripture to help confused young teens be at peace with how God created them and his design for sexuality,” HRLA says on its website.
“Now, thanks to an 8-1 Supreme Court decision in Chiles v. Salazar, the state’s overreach has been stopped.When Colorado labeled Kaley Chiles’ counsel “conversion therapy,” they effectively denied any religious exemptions, a clear attack on the First Amendment itself.”
The case was brought by the high profile US lobby group the Family Research Council, which says if the ruling had been allowed to stand, “it would have set a disastrous precedent for the rest of the nation”.
“That’s one of the main reasons Family Research Council filed an amicus brief in this case, based on the expert research of our Senior Research Fellow and licensed clinician, Dr. Jennifer Bauwens. We knew this case would have a precedent-setting effect,” said FRC president Tony Perkins.
Dr. Bauwens stated on FRC’s Washington Watch channel that 23 US states had outright bans on clinicians being able to explore the underlying issues and struggles in regard to gender dysphoria or homosexuality.
“Now, with this decision, we have the opportunity to overturn all the other bans.If gender ideology and same-sex attraction are so innate and unchangeable as the radical Left believes, why have they worked so hard to try and use the law to prohibit those struggling with these abnormalities from honest questions and biblical truth?” Dr Bauwens asked viewers.
“Because the light of God’s Word exposes lies, brokenness, and sin, which then provides a way forward for healing and wholeness.” She cited St Paul’s writings in Ephesians 5: “Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.”
“While we celebrate this monumental victory, the fight to uphold the First Amendment is far from over. In fact, even as one door opens, another is quickly closing,” Perkins said.
The organisation also says the Johnson Amendment, a decades-old restriction that has long silenced pastors from speaking freely on political issues, might finally come to an end.
After being sued by the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) under the Biden administration, the IRS – now under President Trump – proposed a consent decree to exempt churches from enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, which would have allowed churches and pastors to endorse political candidates and speak on political issues from the pulpit without fear of losing tax-exempt status. In essence, it would have restored pastors’ First Amendment rights.
However, this month a federal judge in Texas declined to approve the proposed consent decree and by doing so, sidestepped an opportunity on the 250th anniversary of the US to correct a wrong that strikes at the very heart of American freedom.
FRC was directly involved in this effort and was prepared to mobilize its extensive religious leader network ahead of the midterm elections once the decree was signed.
“And while this particular outcome is disappointing, it is not the end of the road. In response to this news, the U.S. Treasury Department and the IRS announced they will develop guidelines for houses of worship to protect religious freedom and the First Amendment, at least during this administration,” says Perkins.
“As we await these guidelines, I remain very optimistic that the case itself can be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
“In the meantime, FRC will continue working to ensure that pastors are free to preach the full counsel of God’s Word without fear of government reprisal. Because that’s what this ultimately comes down to: whether truth can be spoken freely in our nation.”
Cairns News notes that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are essentially the same thing, which is why they appear together in the US First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
It is no accident that Section 116 of the Commonwealth Constitution reads almost identically to the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia (2008 to 2017), the late Robert French, published a 19-page paper titled United States Influence on the Australian Legal System.
French traces the movement of Roman law into England, the development of English common law and its movement into the American colonies. “It suffices to say that despite post-revolutionary hostility to things English, the work of the great English common law scholars was influential in the early United States,” writes French.
“Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 18th century, sold almost as many copies in the United States as they did in England.”
He says that like the English legal scholars, the great American legal scholars James Kent and Joseph Story frequently cited Roman and civil law sources in the commentaries which they produced in the 19th century
French then notes the Australian connection: “James Kent’s Commentaries on American Law tried to integrate the laws of each of the States of the United States with those of England, and to draw comparisons with the systems of France, Holland and other nations of the Continent. It was used as a resource in England, Canada and Australia.
“One of his underlying purposes was to offset the prevailing mood of hostility in the United States to the continued use of the common law as something English. He tried to do this by showing that the other systems of law, like the common law, were based on natural law and so arrived at similar results in practice.”
French goes one to note the direct influence of Kent and Story’s Commentaries in Australia.
“Kent’s writings on the judicial review of legislation for constitutional invalidity were invoked in 19th century New South Wales. The Supreme Court of the Colony in 1861 held that it had the power and that it was under an obligation to decide whether an Act of the New South Wales Colonial Legislature contravened an Act of the Imperial Parliament and was thus invalid.
“Chief Justice Stephen referred to the limits placed by the United States Constitution on legislative powers. He noted the citation of Kent’s book in many decisions on the point. One of his fellow judges, Justice Wise, cited Kent as ‘one of the highest authorities on such a subject’.
“He referred to an important statement of principle by Kent reflective of what had been said by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v Madison4 in 1803: The attempt to impose restraints upon the Acts of the legislative power would be fruitless, if the constitutional provisions were left without any power in the Government to guard and enforce them.”
So, we would suggest that an honest Australian judiciary would or should certainly take historical precedents such as the recent SCOTUS 8-1 decision, into consideration when judging the validity of Australian laws that brazenly restrict religious freedom – the very act of praying for a person.
We hope the Human Rights Law Alliance has success in its considerable number of cases where religious freedom, and by extension, freedom of speech and conscience, are being taken away. The HRLA can be supported at this link.
