{"id":3068,"date":"2013-09-05T23:48:50","date_gmt":"2013-09-06T03:48:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/nocrossnocrescent\/?p=3068"},"modified":"2013-09-05T23:48:50","modified_gmt":"2013-09-06T03:48:50","slug":"massachusetts-opened-the-door-to-equality-for-gays-will-it-do-the-same-for-atheists-and-what-does-it-have-to-do-with-medieval-kings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/nocrossnocrescent\/2013\/09\/05\/massachusetts-opened-the-door-to-equality-for-gays-will-it-do-the-same-for-atheists-and-what-does-it-have-to-do-with-medieval-kings\/","title":{"rendered":"Massachusetts opened the door to equality for gays; Will it do the same for atheists? (And what does it have to do with medieval kings?)"},"content":{"rendered":"

As my co-blogger Jonathan Pearce has mentioned<\/a>\u00a0already, something very interesting is going on in Massachusetts these days<\/a>.<\/p>\n

A family in suburban Boston hopes to change the phrasing of the Pledge of Allegiance to remove two words they claim violate students’ rights.\u00a0The family is challenging the pledge, which students recite daily in U.S. public schools, claiming the words “under God”\u00a0violate the state’s equal rights laws.<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs, who have requested anonymity through their lawyers, are taking an unconventional approach to challenging the pledge.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Unconventiona<\/a>l?<\/p>\n

Since the addition of the phrase \u201cunder God\u201d in 1954, the pledge has been challenged repeatedly as a violation of the separation of church and state. In 2004, one case reached the Supreme Court, but ultimately failed, as have all previous challenges.<\/p>\n

But the current case before the state\u2019s Supreme Judicial Court, Doe v. Acton-Boxborough Regional School District, is different because lawyers for the plaintiffs, an anonymous atheist couple, won\u2019t be arguing about federal law but rather that the compulsory recitation of the pledge violates the state\u2019s equal rights laws. They argue that the daily recitation of the pledge is a violation of their guarantee of equal protection under those laws.<\/p>\n

This change of tack in pledge challenges is modeled on a successful precedent laid down in the same court on gay marriage. In 2003, Massachusetts\u2019 Supreme Judicial Court ruled 4-3 in favor of a same-sex couple seeking the right to marry under the state\u2019s equal rights laws. Their win led to similar successful challenges in other state courts \u2014 something that could happen here if judges rule for the plaintiffs.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The plaintiffs were represents by the wonderful David Niose<\/a>.
\n