字号·· | 护眼
华盛顿邮报

拒绝同性恋父母子女入学的天主教幼儿园是否应获得州政府拨款?Should a Catholic preschool that bars kids of gay parents get state money?

点「原文对照」整页切到原文,或双击某段只看那段的原文。

埃里卡·纳格尔的儿子本周在科罗拉多州利特尔顿的圣玛丽天主教堂祈祷。(切特·斯特兰奇/为《华盛顿邮报》拍摄)Erika Nagle’s son prays at St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton, Colorado, this week. (Chet Strange/For The Washington Post)

最高法院定于周二审理一起处于宗教权利与科罗拉多州反歧视政策交汇点的案件。

The Supreme Court is set Tuesday to hear a case at the intersection of religious rights and Colorado’s antidiscrimination policies.

埃里卡·内格尔的儿子本周在科罗拉多州利特尔顿的圣玛丽天主教堂教区祈祷。(切特·斯特朗/《华盛顿邮报》供图)埃里卡·内格尔(Erika Nagle)热爱圣玛丽天主教堂教区的学前班。

Erika Nagle’s son prays at St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton, Colorado, this week. (Chet Strange/For The Washington Post) Erika Nagle loves the preschool at St. Mary Catholic Parish.

当她的前两个孩子上学时,她开车送他们往返于丹佛地区的交通中,单程需要40分钟。但她的选择意味着她不得不放弃科罗拉多州普惠制学前班项目向把孩子送到许多其他学前班的家长提供的、每个孩子大约6300美元的资助。

When her first two children attended, she shuttled them 40 minutes to the school and back home in Denver-area traffic. But her choice meant she had to forgo the roughly $6,300-per-child assistance that Colorado’s universal pre-K program provides parents who send their kids to many other preschools.

圣玛丽的家庭没有资格获得这笔经济资助,因为该校与丹佛总教区运营的其他学校一样,不接受同性恋父母的孩子,这一政策违反了学前班项目的反歧视要求。

Families at St. Mary are not eligible for the financial assistance because the school, like others run by the Denver Archdiocese, does not accept children of gay parents, a policy that violates the pre-K program’s antidiscrimination requirements.

但该校表示,其招生政策符合天主教教义,并受到宪法规定的宗教自由行使权的保护。

But the admissions policy, the school says, is in line with its Catholic teachings and is protected by the constitutional right to the free-exercise of religion.

现在,随着准备为第三个孩子报名圣玛丽学前班,内格尔辩称,她和其他圣玛丽的家长才是遭到歧视的人。

Now, preparing to enroll her third child at St. Mary, Nagle argues she and other St. Mary parents are the ones being discriminated against.

内格尔在一次采访中说:“当我们知道自己被排斥,并感觉因为选择了自己心仪的宗教学校而受到惩罚时,这真让人感到不是滋味。”她现在也在该校工作。

“It just puts a bad taste in our mouths when we know that we are being excluded and feeling like we’re punished for choosing the religious school of our choice,” Nagle, who now also has a job with the school, said in an interview.

这种情况是否会改变——以及像内格尔这样的家长能否将州政府的福利用于他们的宗教学前班——是目前摆在最高法院面前的问题。这起于周二进行辩论的案件,有可能延续最高法院对美国政教分离之墙的重塑。自2020年以来,由6比3保守派多数主导的最高法院在几乎所有涉及政教分离的案件中都做出了有利于宗教团体的裁决,法律专家预计圣玛丽也不会有不同的结果。

Whether that will change — and parents like Nagle can use the state benefit for their religious preschool — is a question now before the Supreme Court. The case, being argued Tuesday, has the potential to extend the Supreme Court’s remaking of the wall between church and state in America. Since 2020, the court, dominated by a 6-3 conservative majority, has ruled in favor of religious groups in nearly every case involving church-state separation , and legal experts expect St. Mary to fare no differently.

如果最高法院做出有利于圣玛丽(St. Mary)的裁决,这可能会跨越一条新的底线:允许公共福利流向公开基于性倾向进行歧视的宗教学校。

If the high court rules for St. Mary, it could cross a new line: allowing public benefits to flow to religious schools that openly discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

加州大学伯克利分校法学院院长欧文·切梅林斯基(Erwin Chemerinsky)表示,最高法院此前已经裁定,宗教学校在雇用和解雇世俗学科教师时,无需遵守联邦关于年龄和残疾的要求。

The high court has already ruled that religious schools do not need to comply with federal age and disability requirements when hiring and firing teachers of secular subjects, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California at Berkeley.

切梅林斯基在一次采访中说:“我认为这甚至会更进一步,并表示:你们不能因为我们认为会让我们因宗教原因而拒绝接受这笔资金的任何事情,就剥夺我们的资助。”

“I think this would even go further and say: You can’t deny us funding for anything that we believe would cause us to refuse to take the money on account of our religion,” Chemerinsky said in an interview.

纳格尔站在圣玛丽天主教堂学校的主走廊里。(切特·斯特兰奇/为《华盛顿邮报》拍摄)Nagle in the main hallway of the St. Mary Catholic Parish school. (Chet Strange/For The Washington Post)

内格尔(Nagle)在圣玛丽天主教教区学校的主走廊里。(切特·斯特兰奇/《华盛顿邮报》特约)该项目于2020年获得科罗拉多州选民批准,为该州所有4岁儿童每周15小时的学前教育费用提供报销。截至去年12月,这相当于每个孩子大约6300美元。家长可以为其子女选择要就读的学前班,包括任何符合该州标准的公立、私立或宗教学校。

Nagle in the main hallway of the St. Mary Catholic Parish school. (Chet Strange/For The Washington Post) The program, approved by Colorado voters in 2020, reimburses the cost of 15 hours per week of preschool for all 4-year-olds in the state. As of December, that adds up to about $6,300 per child. Parents can choose which preschool their child will attend, including any public, private or religious school that meets the state’s standards.

为了参与该项目,学校不得以种族、宗教信仰、收入水平以及包括性倾向和性别认同在内的许多其他受法律保护的特征为由拒绝招生。

To participate, schools may not deny enrollment on the basis of race, religious affiliation, income level and a host of other legally protected characteristics, including sexual orientation and gender identity.

丹佛总教区(Denver Archdiocese)运营的所有34所学前班(包括圣玛丽)都没有参与,因为它们不接受同性恋和跨性别父母的孩子。

All 34 preschools run by the Denver Archdiocese, including St. Mary, do not participate because they do not accept the children of gay and transgender parents.

圣玛丽表示,这样做将与教会关于婚姻只能在男人和女人之间进行的教义相冲突。该总教区内的每一所学前班都要求家长签署一份“社区信仰与承诺”声明,在声明中他们同意接受“日益与”世俗文化“不合拍”的教会教义,包括堕胎和同性婚姻是不道德的。

St. Mary says doing otherwise would conflict with the church’s teachings that marriage can be only between a man and a woman. Every preschool within the archdiocese requires that parents sign a statement of “Community Beliefs and Commitments,” in which they agree to accept church teachings “increasingly at odds with” secular culture, including that abortion and same-sex marriage are immoral.

圣玛丽学校的律师在向最高法院提交的文件中写道:“这种立场的一致性很重要,因为如果家长公开反对教会的教导,他们在学校社区中的参与将损害学校按照信仰培养学生的能力。”

“This alignment is important because, if parents publicly oppose the Church’s teachings, their participation in the school community would impair the ability of the school to form its students in the faith,” St. Mary attorneys wrote in a filing to the high court.

但州政府表示,该政策与科罗拉多州的要求相冲突,即合格学校不得基于性取向和性别认同进行歧视。州政府补充说,正是对LGBTQ+家长的排挤——而不是其宗教属性——使圣玛丽学校和其他天主教学前班失去了资格。

But the state says the policy conflicts with Colorado’s requirements that eligible schools cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The state adds that the exclusion of LGBTQ+ parents — and not the fact that it is religious — disqualifies St. Mary and other Catholic preschools.

州政府在提交给最高法院的开篇陈词中写道:“申请人仍然欢迎参与UPK,前提是须遵守适用于所有其他公共资助学前班(公立和私立、世俗和宗教)的相同的机会均等要求。”

“Petitioners remain welcome to participate in UPK, subject to the same equal-opportunity requirements that apply to all other publicly funded preschools — public and private, secular and religious,” the state wrote in its opening brief to the Supreme Court.

一名示威者在四月于最高法院外手持美国国旗和一面支持LGBTQ+权利的旗帜。A demonstrator holds an American flag and a flag in support of LGBTQ+ rights outside the Supreme Court in April.

4月,一名示威者在最高法院外手持一面美国国旗和一面支持LGBTQ+权益的旗帜。

A demonstrator holds an American flag and a flag in support of LGBTQ+ rights outside the Supreme Court in April.

LGBTQ+倡导者表示,给予圣玛丽学校豁免将导致政府资助的歧视。一组学者在一份法庭之友陈词中辩称,基于性取向拒绝家庭与基于种族拒绝家长之间几乎没有区别。在1968年的一项裁决中,最高法院驳回了将宗教自由作为以种族为由将人们拒之门外的正当理由的论点。

LGBTQ+ advocates say an exemption for St. Mary would lead to government-sponsored discrimination. There is little difference between denying families based on sexual orientation and denying parents based on race, one group of scholars argued in an amicus brief . And in a 1968 decision , the high court rejected the argument that religious free exercise is a valid reason to turn people away based on race.

佩里·L·格兰茨在一份代表支持LGBTQ+人群民权保护的法学家集团的陈词中写道:“将‘偏执的’种族主义者与‘值得尊敬的’、拥有坚定宗教信仰的公民区分开来,歪曲了60年前美国社会……看待这些问题的方式。此外,就像当年的豁免寻求者一样,[1965年民权法案]的宗教反对者在被描述为偏执狂时感到恼火;他们同样认为自己基于信仰对[民权法案]的反对是崇高、正确和正义的。”圣玛丽学校辩称,坚持其信仰并不构成歧视。

“The distinction between ‘bigoted’ racists and ‘honorable’ citizens with deeply held religious beliefs distorts how American society ... viewed these issues 60 years ago,” Perry L. Glantz wrote on behalf of a group of legal scholars who support civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ people. “Moreover, like today’s exemption seekers, religious objectors to the [Civil Rights Act of 1965] bristled when described as bigots; they, too, considered their faith-based opposition to the [Civil Rights Act] honorable, right, and just.”St. Mary argues that adhering to its beliefs does not constitute discrimination.

“相反,这是关于建立一个拥有共同信仰的‘整体社区’,”代表圣玛丽的宗教法律非营利组织贝克特宗教自由基金会的律师尼克·里维斯说。

Instead, it’s about creating a “holistic community” with a shared set of beliefs, said Nick Reaves, a lawyer with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a religious legal nonprofit representing St. Mary.

他说:“天主教会受父母委托提供天主教教育——但科罗拉多州的意思是,我们要告诉你们提供天主教教育意味着什么。我认为问题就出在这里。”

“The Catholic church is being entrusted by parents to provide a Catholic education — but what Colorado is saying is we want to tell you what it means to provide a Catholic education,” he said. “I think that’s where the problem is.”

圣玛丽在法庭文件中还指出,“记录中没有任何一例”LGBTQ+父母试图在总教区幼儿园入学。

St. Mary also notes in court filings that the “record is devoid of a single instance” of an LGBTQ+ parent trying to enroll at an archdiocese preschool.

自诉讼开始以来,纳格尔一直在圣玛丽担任学校与家长之间的沟通联络员。纳格尔不是案件当事人,但她的处境与原告父母丹尼尔和丽莎·希利相似,后者也声称自己被不公平地排除在学前教育援助之外。圣玛丽天主教堂区。(切特·斯特兰奇摄/为《华盛顿邮报》)就纳格尔而言,LGBTQ+父母的孩子被排除在外,并未在她为孩子选择最佳幼儿园的考量中占据重要地位。

Since the litigation began, Nagle has been working at St. Mary as a communications liaison between the school and its parents. Nagle is not a party in the case, but her circumstances mirror those of the named plaintiff parents, Daniel and Lisa Sheley, who also claim they’ve been unfairly excluded from the pre-K assistance. St. Mary Catholic Parish. (Chet Strange/For The Washington Post) For her part, Nagle says the exclusion of children of LGBTQ+ parents LGBTQ+ hadn’t played heavily into her thinking about the best preschool for her kids.

圣玛丽天主教堂。(切特·斯特兰奇/为《华盛顿邮报》拍摄)St. Mary Catholic Parish. (Chet Strange/For The Washington Post)

“我选择这所学校不是因为谁被允许入学、谁不被允许,”纳格尔说。“我选择这所学校是因为它拥有的东西。”

“I didn’t choose this school because of who is allowed and who isn’t allowed,” Nagle said. “I chose this school for what it does have .”

从她的角度来看,该州通过歧视像她这样的天主教家庭,破坏了自身的反歧视原则。

From her perspective, the state has undermined its own nondiscrimination principles by discriminating against Catholic families like hers.

“如果同性父母家庭想参加这个项目,他们可以,”纳格尔说,方法是选择送孩子去符合资格的幼儿园。该州“创建了一个被视为面向所有人的普遍项目,被排除在外的却是成千上万的宗教家庭——天主教家庭……所以这只是不公,是一种不公正。”

“If a family with same sex-parents wanted to opt into this program, they could,” Nagle said, by choosing to send their kids to eligible preschools. The state “created a program deemed universal for all, and the ones that are being excluded are thousands of religious families — Catholic families ... so it’s just unjust, it’s an injustice.”

丹佛总教区总主教詹姆斯·R·戈尔卡在最近《丹佛邮报》的一篇专栏文章中写道,自学前班项目启动以来,该总教区学校的入学人数已下降了20%。他说,此后已有两所学校关闭——尽管州政府辩称,其中至少有一所学校在该项目生效前就已因入学人数低而陷入困境。

James R. Golka, archbishop of the Denver Archdiocese, wrote in a recent Denver Post op-ed that enrollment at the archdioceses’ schools has dropped 20 percent since the pre-K program began. Two schools, he said, have since closed — although the state argues that at least one of those schools had been struggling with low enrollment before the program went into effect.

尽管如此,戈尔卡表示,该项目的要求让家长面临一个危险的选择:“放弃你的信仰,或者退出。”

Still, Golka said the program’s requirements present parents with a perilous choice: “abandon your faith, or stay out.”

近年来,宪法赋予的宗教权利与反歧视法律在最高法院发生碰撞,法院经常站在主流基督徒一边。2018年,法院裁决支持一名科罗拉多州面包师,该面包师拒绝为同性伴侣制作婚礼蛋糕。

Constitutional religious rights and nondiscrimination laws have collided at the Supreme Court in recent years, with the court frequently siding with mainstream Christians. In 2018, the court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

两年后,法院裁决支持天主教社会服务机构(CSS),这是一家寄养服务机构,因拒绝为同性伴侣服务而失去了与费城市政府的合同。大法官们一致裁决支持CSS,认定费城市政府违反了该组织的信仰自由权,因为该市允许其反歧视规则有豁免情况,却未将豁免延伸至CSS。

Two years later, the court ruled in favor of Catholic Social Services (CSS), a foster care service that had lost its contract with the city of Philadelphia because it would not serve same-sex couples. The justices ruled unanimously for CSS, finding that the city had violated the organization’s free-exercise rights because it allowed exemptions to its nondiscrimination rules but did not extend one to CSS.

圣玛丽天主教堂学前班教室里的祈祷角。(Chet Strange/《华盛顿报》供图)在过去十年的判决中,法院还允许公共资金流向宗教学校。最近一次是在2022年,法院认定缅因州将宗教学校排除在学费援助项目之外违宪。法院在以6比3、按意识形态路线分裂的裁决中推理称,因为该项目允许家长将福利用于世俗私立学校,所以它歧视了宗教学校。

A prayer corner in a preschool classroom of St. Mary Catholic Parish. (Chet Strange/For The Washington Post) In decisions over the last decade, the court has also permitted public funds to flow to religious schools. Most recently, in 2022, the court found that Maine’s exclusion of religious schools from a tuition assistance program was unconstitutional. Because the program allowed parents to use the benefit for secular private schools, it had discriminated against religious schools, the court reasoned in the 6-3 ruling along ideological lines .

圣玛丽天主教堂一间学前班教室里的祈祷角。(切特·斯特兰奇/为《华盛顿邮报》拍摄)A prayer corner in a preschool classroom of St. Mary Catholic Parish. (Chet Strange/For The Washington Post)

切梅林斯基说:“罗伯茨法院在扩大信仰自由保护方面非常激进,”他指的是首席大法官约翰·G·罗伯茨。切梅林斯基补充说,圣玛丽案可能会延续这种转变。

“The Roberts court has been very aggressive in expanding free-exercise protections ,” Chemerinsky said, referencing Chief Justice John G. Roberts . Chemerinsky added that the St. Mary case could continue that shift.

“这里存在一个重大潜在问题,”他说,这也是近期宗教案件中一个反复出现的主题,“人们在多大程度上应该被允许因其宗教信仰而歧视他人?”

“ There’s a large underlying question,” he said, one that has been a recurring theme in recent religion cases. “To what extent should people be able to discriminate against others on account of their religious beliefs? ”

阅读媒体原文 ↗