This is from the Prop 8 trial presided over by Judge Walker:
Judge Walker: “I’m asking you to tell me how it would harm opposite-sex marriages.”
Prop 8 Attorney Charles Cooper: “All right.”
Judge Walker: “All right. Let’s play on the same playing field for once.”
Cooper: “Your Honor, my answer is: I don’t know.”
[see http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/tag/david-blankenhorn/]
The problem with McBride’s “Threats to Chick-fil-A are a Threat to Religious Liberty” article in Meridian Magazine is that she doesn’t seem to understand what religious liberty is or why it’s important. Religious liberty means that we, each of us, individually, have the privilege of managing our spiritual lives as we see fit in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. In order for that to be possible, it should be obvious that religious liberty would die a quick and ignominious death if it were used as a justification for individuals to impose their religious views on others.
And that is the problem (and the distinction that appears lost on Erin Ann McBride and the readers of Meridian Magazine).
Imagine for a moment that heterosexual marriage were specifically banned in the constitutions of 31 states, while same-sex marriage were universally accepted. Now imagine being a heterosexual and petitioning the gay community for the right to marry. Imagine that the gay community comes back with this logic: “Well, even though it wouldn’t affect our marriages, we can’t allow it, because we don’t believe in heterosexual marriage.”
The exchange from the Prop 8 trial above is instructive. When asked how opposite-sex marriages would be harmed by marriage equality, the Prop 8 attorney responded: “I don’t know.”
I can help the Prop 8 attorney out. Marriage equality takes away the ability of the heterosexual majority to impose its religious views on the homosexual minority. For those of us that have gotten comfortable with bigotry, marriage equality may feel like harm, but for those of us that care about religious liberty (and understand what it is), it’s cause for celebration.
As for the rest of the half-baked, fear-based, twaddle in the Meridian article, see these old posts:
Same-Sex Marriage: Calling BS on the Religious Freedom Argument
Seven Dumb Arguments Cluttering Up the Same-Sex Marriage Discourse
A friend of mine suggested this post by Rachel Held Evans (It is an even-handed and thoughtful assessment of the Chick-fil-A controversy).
[Last Post: 37 The 1800s Called]
I’ve never seen this expressed more clear. Very articulate, Brent!
Great response, Brent!
The Meridian article is an interesting read and she brings up some important points. However her whole premise is wrong which is glaringly obvious in the last line when she puts the “free exercise of religion” on one side of the coin and “the right to same sex marriage” on the other side of the coin. Like you say…the free exercise of religion doesn’t equate with no same-sex marriage.
I really liked Rachel Held Evans’ take on the issue. Thanks for sharing!
A few weeks ago, our (Catholic) deacon preached a sermon that suggested priests and deacons were going to wind up in jail. I think (although I actually couldn’t follow his argument at all) that he was trying to imply that churches would be forced to marry same-sex couples against their will. Seems a little off, since churches aren’t forced to marry anyone they don’t want to. A heterosexual couple can’t just walk up to a priest or pastor or rabbi and say, hey, marry us now, and he/she has to do it. I just wonder if this is the conclusion that people are coming to, that if same-sex marriage is allowed, then suddenly their church will have to perform same sex marriages, thus impinging on their freedom of religion??
I don’t think my priest (pastor) would have ever preached a sermon like that (he seems much more open-minded), or I would have to find a new church ASAP. And my husband walked out in the middle of the service with my kids. I was stuck up in front with the choir–my ‘choir’ is actually a duet, and leaving would have been grossly unfair to the lovely woman I sing with. But this was the first time in a while (unfortunately, not the first time ever!) that I really felt like walking out.
At present, churches can refuse to marry interracial couples, and race is about the single most protected category under federal law. About the only thing more protected than equal opportunity regardless of race is freedom of religion, which means (1) you ahve the right to the free exercise of your religion and (2) the government can’t lawfully establish a religion. Full stop. It doesn’t mean freedom to live in a nation where the things that are against your religion are forbidden to everyone. In fact, that would specifically violate the establishment clause.
Thank you! When a friend in CA was gathering sigs for prop 8 I asked why. She said her stake leaders said the church rights would be impacted. I asked her about the churches that WANT to marry gays and lesbians. What about my gay friend who is a pastor? Why is it ok to suppress his religious freedom? What about freedom FROM religion? Marriage is a legal institution, belief in deity not required. Her answer? “huh. I hadn’t thought about that.”
This is a really well-explained argument. Religious liberty is a vital part of the Republic; however, for religious liberty to truly exist, it must be accompanied by a vigorous commitment to pluralism.
@Anselma, I could have dispensed with the post and just put your line up: “Religious liberty is a vital part of the Republic; however, for religious liberty to truly exist, it must be accompanied by a vigorous commitment to pluralism.” Very nicely encapsulated.