On Wednesday, March 2, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is scheduled to present before the U.S. Supreme Court his defense of a Ten Commandments monument on the state capitol grounds. But this is of more than Texas interest: Mr. Abbott hopes the court, which refused to hear the appeal of former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, will use the monument as an example of how the Ten Commandments may be displayed.
Mr. Abbott graduated from the University of Texas in 1981 and studied law at Vanderbilt University. He took a break while studying for the bar exam in 1984 and went for a jog, but a 75-foot tree at least eight feet in diameter fell on him, damaging his spine and almost killing him. He says that while lying in the hospital he thought that he was still alive for a reason. Since then he has been in a wheelchair, partly paralyzed. He is a Catholic and strongly pro-life.
WORLD: How is your approach to displaying the Ten Commandments different from the approach of Roy Moore, Alabama's former Chief Justice? Why did you proceed that way?
Abbott: My approach in defending the Ten Commandments display on the Texas Capitol grounds is driven by applicable U.S. Supreme Court precedent and the specific facts of our case, which differ significantly from the facts in Alabama.
In 1961, the Fraternal Order of Eagles donated the six-foot granite monument "to the Youth and People of Texas" as a way to combat juvenile delinquency and promote a personal code of conduct for youth. (The group gave similar monuments to other states during the 1950s and '60s.) The Ten Commandments monument is one of 17 monuments that adorn the grounds of the historic Texas Capitol, and they collectively celebrate various people, events, and ideals important to the culture and diversity of Texas.
The Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred religious text, but-equally undeniably-they are also a foundational text for Western legal codes and culture. As such, they deserve a place on the Capitol grounds among the numerous other statues and memorials that acknowledge the various influences on Texas history. The Ten Commandments carry enormous cultural, historical, and legal significance. I agree with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the Ten Commandments, while a holy text to many, is "also a powerful teacher of ethics, of wise counsel urging a regimen of just governance among free people."
More fundamentally, the First Amendment was never intended to remove all religious expression from the public square. As the 5th Circuit put it, "Such hostility toward religion is not only not required; it is proscribed." But plaintiffs seeking to purge all such expression from public view are sadly never in short supply and often bully government officials into yielding under the threat of expensive litigation.
I fully believe, and will argue before the U.S. Supreme Court, that the Texas Ten Commandments monument is constitutional and that government may recognize religion's undeniable role as a foundational aspect of our nation's law and culture.
And as I present my argument, I will be mindful that looking down on me and the justices in that historic chamber will be a carving of Moses holding the very tablets that are at the center of this debate.
WORLD: What lessons do you derive from evangelical political engagement over the past two decades? What have been the best results of that engagement?
Abbott: Those who want to impact the direction of legislation and other public policies must stay engaged in the process long after the polls close. Protecting the sanctity of human life is a top priority for many evangelicals. Their sustained involvement over the years has helped elevate society to the point where we value life more. Through crisis pregnancy centers, caring people show pregnant mothers that we care about them and their unborn babies. We also have pro-life legislation that would not have passed, were it not for the involvement of concerned evangelicals, Catholics, and other people of faith.
The impact of "values voters" in the recent election shows just how significant that participation can be. Many commentators still puzzle at the 2004 presidential election and the rise of Red State values voters. But this much is clear: Evangelicals are weary of the ceaseless disdain heaped upon them by liberal elites and the dominant media culture that denigrates religious values. President Bush, for example, has been on the receiving end of some vicious rhetoric-"fanatic," "messianic militarist," etc.-that likens him to history's worst barbarians. And the tiresome Bush-bashing has bled at times into a general anti-religious bigotry, vilifying his supporters for living their faith out loud (even filibustering some of his judicial nominees for their "deeply held religious beliefs"). This rhetoric of contempt and religious profiling is startling, and voters demonstrated on Election Day that they're fed up with it.
Faith-inspired social action has fueled the fight against slavery, championed the civil rights movement, launched a mammoth AIDS initiative in Africa, campaigned against the sexual enslavement and trafficking of women, mobilized anger against religious persecution and genocide in Sudan, and so much more.
Moreover, the potency of faith-based groups to lift lives is beyond serious dispute and their uncommon success is, in my view, rooted in their unabashed reliance on God as their source of strength. Government should applaud and support these Good Samaritans and certainly do nothing to hamstring their important work. My office is reaching out to faith-based groups as part of our effort to encourage healthy marriages in Texas.
WORLD: What is your view of a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
Abbott: Marriage is fundamental to our culture and indispensable to a flourishing, civil society. Over millennia and across cultures, traditional marriage has been the cornerstone for a strong and stable family, the building-block institution of civilization. And a wealth of unflinching, empirical data demonstrates the unmatched potency of the family to combat social ills, foster strong communities, and promote happier, healthier lives.
Unfortunately, we live in a time when half of all marriages end in divorce and a third of children are born out of wedlock. As attorney general of Texas, I am responsible for the child-support system and I see the effects of this ruptured foundation every day. That's why I am partnering with government agencies and faith-based and community groups to encourage healthy marriages in Texas. Stronger marriages will lead to stronger families and stronger children-and, in turn, a reduced need for child support and other government services.
Regarding the definition of marriage, Texas law is clear and recognizes only marriages between one man and one woman. If that law is challenged, I will vigorously defend it. In 2003, a state judge in Beaumont, Texas, tried to grant a divorce to two men who had received a civil union in Vermont. I reminded the judge that Texas law does not recognize civil unions, and he quickly reversed course.
The U.S. Congress grasped the growing debate over marriage in 1996 when it passed the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by a decisive and bipartisan margin. Since then, however, court decisions have weakened the foundation underlying DOMA. This requires Congress to reexamine the legal landscape and, if necessary, take decisive steps to ensure that the traditional understanding of marriage remains the law of the land-and free from activist judicial mischief and usurpation.
Some observers insist that congressional action to protect the institution of marriage would offend states' rights. This argument is specious. The real threat to states' rights is unconstrained judicial activism, not Congress. If courts continue to upend our laws and the principles that animate them, the right of citizens across America to define marriage, through their elected state representatives, will be usurped. Indeed, Congress may be the only institution that can protect states' rights in this area. In any event, states' rights are amply protected by the constitutional amendment process itself, which requires ratification by three-fourths of the states.
I support efforts, including a constitutional amendment, to safeguard the traditional understanding of what marriage is and honor the inestimable societal strength, stability, and vitality that traditional marriage affords.
WORLD: What is the best way to reduce abortions in America?
Abbott: I believe strongly in the sanctity of human life. Life is sacred because it comes from the hand of our Creator, not the whim of man. Our founders recognized this truth when they named life among our unalienable rights.
One of the best ways to protect life and reduce the number of abortions is for parents to be involved in their children's lives. For the vast majority of teens, no one cares more about them than their parents. The more their parents are involved in their lives, the less likely teens will be to engage in risky behaviors.
We are seeing this firsthand in Texas. In 1999, then-Governor George W. Bush signed into law the Parental Notification Act. Underlying that law is the belief that parents have their children's best interests at heart, and should-at the very least-be notified if their minor daughter is considering such a major medical decision.
During my tenure on the Texas Supreme Court, I upheld both the letter and the spirit of that law. Since 1999, teen pregnancies, teen abortions, and teen births all have dropped in Texas. I believe parental involvement played an important role in this encouraging trend.
Protecting life also means not forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions. In 2003, the Texas Legislature passed and Governor Rick Perry signed Rider 8, which bans taxpayer dollars from going to groups that perform abortions. That law is being challenged, and I am defending it in court. The case is currently in a federal appeals court, and we hope to have a favorable decision soon.
Moreover, thanks to the Woman's Right to Know Act, passed in 2003 by the Texas Legislature, Texas women now can find out what's involved in an abortion, including what happens to the baby and what can happen to the mother. This law aims for informed consent, and extensive materials advise pregnant women about, among other things, private and public agencies to help her if she gives birth. That includes my office, which helps unwed mothers establish paternity and collect child support for their children.
WORLD: What effect does theology have on policy decisions? How do you balance the desire to have laws reflecting biblical principle with the understanding that we live in a theologically pluralistic society?
Abbott: As a Christian, I hope my faith informs my decisions in all aspects of life. At the same time, I must exercise discernment not to operate outside the boundaries already established for me in my role as a public official.
A frequent complaint takes aim at "legislating morality," but I would argue that all laws have their root in morality. Morality, in turn, derives from a belief system of some kind.
Take the current battle in Texas over the Ten Commandments, for example. The plaintiff in the case, an avowed atheist, is arguing that the Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds caused him "irreparable injury" because of its religious heritage. But by asking the court to rip this important page from the story of Texas-the first time in 40-plus years that anyone complained about the monument-the most sensitive person in a generation is exercising a veto and forcing his belief in no religion on the rest of the state.
WORLD: Is there an inevitable no-establishment/free exercise First Amendment tension, or is there a wide range of activities that allow both principles to be upheld? In America now, are we more likely to violate the no-establishment or the free exercise principles?
Abbott: The very first words in the First Amendment safeguard religious liberty. As Attorney General, I am committed to ensuring that Texans are protected from discrimination based on their religious beliefs.
The First Amendment's religion clauses serve a single cherished value in our democracy: protecting and promoting religious liberty for all Americans. Courts can strike a levelheaded balance between the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" by embracing a theory of neutrality-that is, government adherence not to all-out secularism, but to evenhandedness, equal treatment, and nondiscrimination that neither helps nor hinders religion. This bedrock principle of government neutrality-not favoring religion over non-religion and not favoring one religion over another-emanates from multiple constitutional sources.
We live in litigious times, with innumerable lawsuits that challenge the role of religion in public life, and the legal landscape is murky at best. Sometimes we win. For example, I was honored in 2003 to have authored a brief on behalf of all 50 states opposing the effort to strip the words "under God" from our Pledge of Allegiance. The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the challenge, albeit on a technicality. And sometimes we lose. In 2004, I wrote a brief on behalf of 12 states asking the high court to support the longstanding tradition of the Virginia Military Institute, a public military college, to include a brief, nonsectarian prayer before evening meals. The Supreme Court refused to take the case, meaning the lower court's decision that barred the prayers-prayers of mature college students, mind you, not impressionable schoolchildren-remains the law.
The debate over the Ten Commandments is another benchmark. Clarity is desperately needed because federal courts are deeply divided on whether Ten Commandments displays are permissible, and budget-strapped governments often cave in to threats of expensive litigation by the ACLU and others. I believe the Texas monument is an excellent example of how to display the Ten Commandments within the parameters of the First Amendment, and I hope the court will use Texas as a model for the nation.