Rather recently, Jay Michaelson wrote
a piece for The Daily Beast entitled,
“The ‘Religious Liberty’ Bullies and Their Fight Against LGBT Equality.” In it, he suggests that those who oppose
same-sex marriage for religious reasons are the same as the racists who opposed
desegregation laws. He calls those who
protect religious liberty, and who therefore are willing to stick up for the
rights of religious people who oppose same-sex marriage, insincere and
“racist,” as well. “Today is a different
age— but the players, and the rhetoric, are the same,” he states. Later on, he says that defenders of religious
liberty are “simply repurposing an old, racist rhetoric to fight the same
social battles as always.”
Ken Blackwell of Townhall.com makes three points:
1. There can be no comparison between
the fight for racial equality and the movement for same-sex marriage.
2. Supporting the traditional
definition of marriage is not the same (or even akin) to supporting
institutionalized racism.
3. Concerns about religious liberty are
both sincere and valid, especially regarding the social trends Michaelson
discusses in both his article and a related report he recently released.
Ken
Blackwell (a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and the American
Civil Rights Union) goes on to explain –
The matter of race occupies a singular
place in our country’s history and laws. Our country fought a bloody Civil War and passed
three separate Constitutional Amendments to rid our society of the injustice
that was slavery. The segregation laws
that followed were ugly remnants of a culture of racial slavery, and they were
immoral and unjust. They defied the
American promise – “… that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness.” Black
Americans were enslaved, literally deprived of their liberty, often robbed of
life, and denied the opportunity to pursue happiness. Segregation laws were a legal statement of
inequality. No other law in American
history spells indignity and injustice like they did, and no other law so explicitly
rings false to our country’s founding principles. Applying the racism of segregation-era America
to today’s “social battles” does not make for a compelling comparison. To state what should be obvious – Not all
racists oppose same-sex marriage, and not all who oppose same-sex marriage are
racists. To say otherwise is disrespectful
and frankly ludicrous. No reasonable
person is advocating “segregation” between the opposite-sex attracted population
and the same-sex attracted population. I
don’t need to go into detail on this point. It should be enough for readers to simply think
of their own family, friends, and acquaintances— some of whom, no doubt, are
uncertain about or against same-sex marriage— and realize that pairing “racist”
with “opposed to same-sex marriage” means labeling many reasonable people as
outright bigots. That kind of accusation
has heavy consequences and is dangerous to healthy discourse.
Marriage, as it stands and has stood
for centuries, is not an institution that was driven into existence by bigotry,
or constructed to deny some right to same-sex partners. People who oppose same-sex marriage do so for
a variety of reasons. There are many who
oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons, and others for reasons grounded
in history, philosophy, and our country’s Constitution. What traditional marriage supporters generally
want is to uphold a centuries-old definition of marriage as between one man and
one woman. It is a fixed definition. They see marriage as unique and unchanging,
valuable because of (and contingent on) its singular male-female union, and
meaningless without it.
The idea that those who are concerned
about religious liberty rights in and around same-sex marriage are covertly
advancing some right-wing agenda is misleading, false, and insulting. Religious liberty is a real, fundamental right,
first in our Constitutional Amendments. It’s
what allows a man to be a conscientious objector, or a church to choose its own
minister. In general, it’s what protects
religious people who hold views that are out of political favor. Michaelson admits that intellectuals and
politicians on both ends of the political spectrum support religious liberty. He simply thinks that religious liberty is
much more limited than it is or ever has been.
As the recent cases against the Health and Human Services contraceptive
mandate demonstrates, America has a diverse and principled religious population
of citizens willing to fight for the right to express their faith in all
aspects of life. That some, like
Michaelson, don’t agree that buying contraception for others violates a
person’s faith, does not suddenly appease the troubled consciences. Those who advocate strong conscience
protections— whether from a contraceptive mandate or from federal recognition
of same-sex marriage— do so sincerely.
Ken Blackwell concludes: We can all
agree that the topic of same-sex marriage draws intense emotions from both
sides. But those emotions do not justify
branding people who disagree with us as liars or bigots. That’s a cheap way to silence dissenters, when
there is real and substantive debate to be had. It’s also a grave insult to honest, truth-seeking
individuals, and a violation of the principles of American society. All people should be free to explore and
define their beliefs. And all should be free
to speak, act, vote and advocate according to their beliefs.
Rev.
Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain
(Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor,
Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel
No comments:
Post a Comment