ARTICLE TOOLS

Print this article Bookmark this article

When U.S. Senate Republicans failed to muster enough votes to even hold a vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment, supporters of the bill consoled themselves by saying they knew it would a long fight. Indeed, some even said they expected that the first attempt to pass the amendment would fail. Changing the Constitution is supposed to be difficult. Evangelicals experienced that difficulty less than ten years ago when backing an amendment to allow for prayer in public schools.

In the 1962 case of Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court declared school-sanctioned prayer unconstitutional. But it wasn't until the Reagan presidency, strongly supported by evangelicals, that prayer in public schools became an issue over which Christians were able to flex political muscle. Reagan offered school prayer amendments, but they failed to go anywhere in the Democratic-controlled Congress.

The following decade, with the 1994 Republican takeover in Congress, two religious freedom amendments were introduced, both of which would allow prayer in public schools. Illinois representative Henry Hyde (who later was instrumental in the Clinton impeachment proceedings) introduced an amendment designed to provide an interpretation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Christians had long argued that rather than preventing the establishment of religion, the government was actually discriminating against religion when the Ten Commandments and prayer were banned from public schools.

According to a Christianity Today article at the time, Hyde's amendment would "protect religious expression in public schools and other venues from government interference by providing the courts with an authoritative interpretation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause." Michael McConnell, a University of Chicago church/state scholar who helped draft the amendment, said, "Government officials are under the impression that discrimination against religious speech is not only constitutionally permissible, but required."

Another proposed amendment, introduced at the same time, provided greater freedom for religious groups. Ernest Istook, a Mormon from Oklahoma, sponsored an amendment that "would allow student-sponsored prayer in public schools and permit local communities to determine their own religious practices, such as whether to set up religious displays during religious holidays."

Both proposals needed to survive Congressional committee scrutiny before an even tougher battle in the House, Senate, and state legislatures. At the same time, President Clinton issued a directive calling for the elimination of "religion-free zones" in public schools. Some said the directive could hinder efforts to pass either amendment. McConnell, however, was upbeat. "I believe the amendment will do a great deal of good for our national discussion even if never ratified." His prediction proved surprisingly accurate.

Neither proposal got very far before the 104th Congress ended its session. When the 105th began, Republicans were still in control, and Christian and conservative groups had a host of unfinished business, including the school prayer/religious liberty amendments. Other issues included abortion restrictions, school vouchers, family tax relief, and bills to outlaw physician assisted suicide.

In 1997, Republican leaders endorsed the Istook amendment, and they pressured the National Association of Evangelicals to endorse it as well. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and House Majority Leader Dick Armey wrote to the NAE saying, "To maximize the success of reaching our common goals, we urge you to endorse. This is the intended vehicle for this effort, and no competing legislation is anticipated."

However the NAE had helped to draft Hyde's opposing amendment, and it did not want to endorse the further-reaching Istook amendment. Other Christian groups, however, such as Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition, supported the Istook amendment and were ready to work hard for its passage.

Some Christian groups were concerned that the bill would bring about divisive local battles for control over school boards and town governments. Because the bill allowed local control over public religious expression, the NAE and others worried that Christians in concentrated Muslim or Jewish areas would be forced to sit in classes in which Muslims or Jews offered prayers. Rather than religious freedom, it might allow another form of religious repression.

After the Istook amendment left the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Hyde, it went up for a vote before the House. There, in 1998, the bill failed by 61 votes, 224 to 203. Congress was far from the two-thirds majority needed.

It had been three years since the religious freedom amendment failed to gain enough support to pass Congressional muster. In 2000, Virginia passed a law that mandated a moment of silence to "meditate, pray or engage in other silent activity" in public schools. The ACLU challenged the moment of silence in court; however, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld law.

Christian groups were glad the court allowed the law to stand. "I'm heartened by it," says Gary Bauer, former Undersecretary of Education in the Reagan administration and former Republican presidential hopeful. "It's too bad that only a moment-of-silence law can pass court muster. Nevertheless, it's a helpful step in the right direction."

The ACLU vowed to appeal the decision, and on October 29, 2000, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, effectively giving its support to a mandatory moment of silence. Stephen Carter, a Yale University law professor and CT columnist, said, "The problem with organized school prayer was that it could too easily contradict the religious teachings of the parents … Many religious parents, however, are understandably uneasy about sending their children to schools that are aggressively secular."

But how should a religiously neutral government accommodate parents and children of differing religions, or no religion at all? "A moment of silence to begin the school day is an excellent compromise," Carter wrote. "Silence is a good thing. It gives time for prayer for those who want to pray, but it also forces everyone to take a few moments of thought, of centering, of simply slowing down in a world—especially an educational world—that moves far too fast."

Christians and conservative groups may not win (as the Senate vote showed) the ongoing legislative battle to ban gay marriage. But that may not be necessary. By bringing the issue before the country in the form of congressional debates, maybe courts will be more hesitant to transform public policy with a stroke of the pen. And in the meantime, Christians can tell the nation why gay marriage would be harmful for everyone involved.