Elizabeth Warren might be one of 2020s most liberal candidates, but it seems even she knows where to draw the line.
When asked to respond to Beto O’Rourke’s claim that religious institutions should lose their tax exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage, Warren’s campaign responded with a a clear and resounding “No.”
“Religious institutions in America have long been free to determine their own beliefs and practices, and she does not think we should require them to conduct same-sex marriages in order to maintain their tax-exempt status,” Warren’s campaign spokeswoman Saloni Sharma said, adding that “Elizabeth will stand shoulder to shoulder with the LGBTQ+ community” in their fight against “discrimination and violence.”
Warren’s response is the correct one: Churches, mosques, temples, and other religious organizations are free to follow the tenets of their faiths as they see fit. The state has no business discriminating against them or dictating their creeds, as this would be a blatant violation of the Constitution.
But so far, Warren is the only Democratic candidate willing to defend religious institutions on the basis of their constitutional rights. Pete Buttigieg was asked to respond to O’Rourke’s comments as well, and though he denounced O’Rourke’s suggestion, he did so because “going after the tax exemption of churches, Islamic centers, or other religious facilities in this country” would “deepen the divisions that we’re already experiencing.” Similarly, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker declined to endorse O’Rourke’s idea because to do so would require a “long legal battle.”
Deepening divisions and long legal battles are excuses that could be pushed aside easily if public opinion were to change. Constitutional rights, however, are permanent protections that can’t be changed without a complete upheaval of the democratic freedoms the U.S. enjoys. Warren rightly appealed to the latter while Buttigieg and Booker danced around the question in an attempt to appease both religious Americans and militant leftists.
Buttigeg and Booker’s halfhearted responses ignored what this debate is really about: the freedom of religion and the constitutional guardrails that give it sanction. O’Rourke has already admitted he cares little for the antiquated rights of old. He’d gladly pick and choose which constitutional rights deserve protection if given the chance, and he doesn’t care who knows it. O’Rourke is, at the very least, honest about his tyrannical ambitions. Can the other 2020 Democrats say the same?
Buttigieg, Booker, and the rest now have two examples before them: O’Rourke, who has been upfront with his intentions, and Warren, who still has enough respect for the Constitution (and enough brains to realize O’Rourke’s radical position will isolate a good chunk of the electorate) to say what needs to be said. One is a winning position, the other is not. If you’re not sure which one is which, a quick glance at the polls should do the trick.
