Becket to Fifth Circuit: anti-religious groups should not be treated as religious Appeals court considers whether Texas law allows secular humanist celebrants to officiate marriages

WASHINGTON – Becket attorneys were at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit today urging the court to preserve America’s historic understanding of religion under the law. In McCutchan v. Nicholson, a secular humanist group is seeking to have its secular celebrants allowed to officiate weddings in Texas. Although Texas law permits only officers of religious organizations and judges to officiate weddings, the humanist group (which is anti-religious) wants to have its celebrants recognized in the same way as religious clergy. 

“Some people treat football like a religion, but that doesn’t mean Dallas Cowboys fans get constitutional protections as if they were churches or synagogues,” said Amanda Salz, counsel at Becket who argued before the court on behalf of Becket as amicus curiae. “Our Constitution draws a firm line: religion is one thing, and personal beliefs, no matter how strongly held, are another. We’re asking the court to keep that line clear.”  

This case raises a crucial question: what counts as “religion” under the law? Becket recently filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the Fifth Circuit in support of neither party, urging the court to follow the Founding-era conception of religion articulated by James Madison: “the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it.” That understanding is broad enough to protect diverse faith traditions, and preserving it ensures that legal safeguards for religious liberty will remain strong.  

This case is about ensuring that the word “religion” keeps its historic, traditional, and constitutional meaning. If “religious organizations” can include such groups as the Sierra Club, Rotary International, the Lions Club, the Communist Party, or even the Dallas Cowboys, the term would lose all meaning.   

“Reserving religious protections for the religious is good for both church and state,” said Salz. “The Founders defined the differences carefully. Federal courts should preserve this important distinction, so ‘religion’ is not watered down to mean nothing at all.” 

A decision by the court is expected in the coming months.  

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at [email protected] or 202-349-7219.