一位科罗拉多州的父亲自掏腰包支付天主教幼儿园学费，而他的税款却资助其他孩子的幼儿园教育。他的一个孩子患有脊柱裂，全家留在科罗拉多州是因为医疗补助对她的需求覆盖得比其他任何地方都好。额外的 6000 美元将极大地帮助照顾她。
A father in Colorado pays out of pocket for Catholic preschool while his taxes fund other children’s preschool educations. One of his children has spina bifida, and the family stays in Colorado because Medicaid covers her needs better than anywhere else. An extra $6,000 would go a long way toward helping care for her.
一位在木材公司工作的母亲，丈夫是油漆工，每到冬天生意就清淡，他们有六个孩子，第七个在路上。她曾以为天主教学校“只有有钱人才上得起”。另一位母亲开办花店生意以帮补学费。她的三个孩子在丹佛的一所天主教学校就读，但她负担不起在那里给最小的孩子上幼儿园的费用，孩子现在在州立项目的一所路德教幼儿园上学。
A mother who works at a lumber company, married to a house painter whose work slows every winter, has six children and a seventh on the way. She once assumed Catholic school was only "for rich people." Another mother started a florist business to help pay tuition. Three of her children attend a Catholic school in Denver, but she could not afford preschool there for her youngest, who now attends a Lutheran preschool in the state program.
“我只是在选择一种信仰，”她说，“可在这里我却因这种选择受到惩罚。”第四位家长在孩子就读的堂区学校找了一份薪水更低的工作以换取学费减免，她眼睁睁看着家庭因学前班费用高昂而离开。
"I’m choosing just a faith," she says, "and here I’m being punished for that." A fourth parent took a lower-paying job at her children’s parish school for a tuition discount, and she has watched families leave because of the cost of pre-K.
我代表这些天主教家庭向最高法院提交了一份法庭之友陈述，案件为圣玛丽天主教堂诉罗伊案，法院将于 11 月 3 日开庭审理。作为原告加入丹佛总教区和两个堂区起诉州政府的丹和丽莎·谢利夫妇讲述了类似的经历。谢利夫妇有七个孩子，其中五个已在圣玛丽学校就读，他们已自掏腰包花费数千美元支付州政府拒绝资助的信仰制幼儿园教育。
I filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court on behalf of these Catholic families in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, which the court will hear on Nov. 3. Dan and Lisa Sheley, parents who joined the Archdiocese of Denver and two parishes in challenging the state in court, tell a similar story. The Sheleys have seven children, five already at St. Mary’s, and have spent thousands of dollars out of pocket on a faith-based preschool education the state will not help fund.
科罗拉多州的“普惠”学前教育项目本应帮助像他们这样的家庭。但它没有做到，原因在于一个单独的条款。要想参与，学校必须承诺提供“平等机会”，该条款涵盖性取向和性别认同，天主教学校若不放弃教会关于婚姻、人类性别和身份认同的教义，就无法同意该条款。科罗拉多州从未需要明说“天主教”。它只需制定一条天主教学校无法满足的规则。
Colorado’s "universal" preschool program was supposed to help families like them. It doesn’t, and the reason is a single clause. To participate, a school must promise "equal opportunity," a provision that covers sexual orientation and gender identity, and Catholic schools cannot agree to it without abandoning church teaching on the nature of marriage, human sexuality and identity. Colorado never has to say "Catholic." It only has to write a rule that Catholic schools cannot meet.
美国以前见过这种举动，在“布莱恩修正案”时期，如今它又回来了。
America has seen that move before, under the Blaine amendments, and they are back.
1875年，在反天主教偏见极其严重的时期，众议院议长詹姆斯·G·布莱恩提出一项宪法修正案，禁止公共资金流向“教派”学校。真正的目标是天主教移民。当时的公立学校是新教性质的，每天的教学、祈祷和圣歌都围绕《钦定版圣经》展开。
In 1875, at a time of great anti-Catholic bigotry, Speaker of the House James G. Blaine proposed a constitutional amendment barring public money from "sectarian" schools. The real target was Catholic immigrants. The public schools of the day were Protestant, with daily instruction, prayers and hymns built around the King James Bible.
寻求让子女接受本信仰传统教育的天主教家庭自建学校。布莱恩的修正案在众议院以压倒性多数通过，在参议院仅差几票未过。各州接力推动，大约三十多个州将其变体写入州宪法。没有一条提到“天主教”，也没有必要提。正如大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯在“米切尔诉赫尔姆斯案”（2000年）中指出的，“教派”是“天主教”的公开代号。
Catholic families that sought instruction for their children in their faith tradition built schools of their own. Blaine’s amendment passed the House overwhelmingly and fell just short in the Senate. The states took up the cause, and roughly three dozen wrote versions into their constitutions. None said "Catholic." None needed to. As Justice Clarence Thomas observed in Mitchell v. Helms (2000), it was an open secret that "sectarian" was code for "Catholic."
科罗拉多州构建了现代版。其项目给符合条件的4岁儿童提供一项福利，每年价值约6000美元，可用于父母选择的学校。参与的代价是“平等机会”条款，天主教学校无法承担这一代价，因此被排除在外。
Colorado has built the modern version. Its program gives eligible 4-year-olds a benefit worth around $6,000 a year at the school their parents choose. The price of participation is the "equal opportunity" clause, which Catholic schools cannot pay. So they are out.
最高法院近年一直在拆除“布莱恩遗产”。在“三一路德教案”（2017年）、“埃斯皮诺萨案”（2020年）和“卡森案”（2022年）中，法院裁定：一旦州政府提供公共福利，就不能因学校具有宗教性质或实践其信仰而取消其资格。科罗拉多州的授令用现代词汇做着同样的事。许多幼儿园愿意接受州政府的条件。但那些信仰包含州政府所拒绝的婚姻、性和人性观的学校则无法接受。
The Supreme Court has spent recent years undoing the Blaine legacy. In Trinity Lutheran (2017), Espinoza (2020) and Carson (2022), it held that once a state offers a public benefit, it cannot disqualify schools for being religious or for practicing their faith. Colorado’s mandate does the same work in modern vocabulary. Many preschools are willing to accept the state’s terms. But those whose faith includes a view of marriage, sex and the human person the state rejects cannot.
科罗拉多州的规则却为其他所有人提供了灵活性。服务提供者可以只服务残疾儿童、只服务低收入儿童、只服务有色人种儿童、只服务性别不顺从儿童，或只服务LGBTQ+群体，官员还可以逐案批准进一步的豁免。但对于天主教学校，却没有任何灵活性。设计该计划的立法者原本预期以信仰为基础的学前教育机构会成为其中的一部分。
And Colorado’s rules bend for everyone else. Providers may serve only children with disabilities, only low-income children, only children of color, only gender-nonconforming children or only the LGBTQ+ community, and officials can grant further exceptions case by case. But there is no flexibility for Catholic schools. The lawmakers who built the program expected faith-based preschools to be part of it.
排除的代价是可衡量的。30所学校约1500名儿童被拒之门外。天主教学前教育机构的入学人数下降了约20%。两所学前教育机构已关闭。
The cost of exclusion is measurable. Roughly 1,500 children across 30 schools have been shut out. Enrollment in Catholic preschools has dropped by about 20%. Two preschools have closed.
提交最高法院的请求范围很窄。科罗拉多州已经为那些使命要求其服务特定社区的提供者腾出了空间，它也可以为天主教机构腾出空间。
The request before the Supreme Court is narrow. Colorado already makes room for providers whose missions call them to serve particular communities. It can make room for Catholic ones.
在“精品蛋糕店案”（2018年）、“303 Creative案”（2023年）和“奇尔斯案”（2026年）中，最高法院曾谴责科罗拉多州的不宽容。大法官们应再次告知该州，宪法的保障不会在意识形态的压力下崩塌。一个为家庭提供私立教育支持的州，不得向致力于坚守天主教身份的天主教学校关上大门。“布莱恩修正案”是美国法律上的污点，不应以新标签卷土重来。
In Masterpiece Cakeshop (2018), 303 Creative (2023) and Chiles (2026), the Supreme Court rebuked Colorado for its intolerance. The justices should tell the state again that the guarantees of the Constitution don’t collapse under the pressure of ideology. A state that offers families support for private education must not close the doors to Catholic schools committed to being Catholic. The Blaine amendments were a stain on American law. They should not return under a new label.