One of the reasons antigay opinion has been eroding in this country is that the (primarily) religious opponents of equality have become so melodramatic and quixotic in their rhetoric, driven by what looks like a maniacal sense of persecution that reasonable observers can’t possibly take seriously. The distance between observable reality and the comic overcharacterization of that reality is leaving decent people who might not otherwise have made up their mind giving us the benefit of the doubt. Lesbians and gay men may not all be models of rectitude and moderation, but at least we have some respectable arguments to make that seem to reflect a recognizable real world.
A good example of the self-dramatized hyperbole comes from Tony Perkins. He has been peddling this line recently, about the danger of the Prop. 8 ruling: “If this case stands, we’ll have gone, in one generation, from 1962, when the Bible was banned in public schools to religious beliefs being banned in America.” I heard him make this case at TheCall in Sacramento last weekend, and he is now selling it on religious broadcasts as well.
His grievance is with Judge Walker’s 77th Finding of Fact, which Perkins correctly quotes: “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.” Perkins doesn’t add that the finding is accompanied (as any proper trial court finding of fact would have to be) by citations to the record at trial – 18 of them – supporting the conclusion. Perkins does complain that Judge Walker ignored all the facts presented by his side, but his real argument is with the lawyers and witnesses who defended Prop. 8, who didn’t exactly offer up a buffet of evidence for the judge to pick from.
Fact #77 doesn’t stand alone (there are 79 other findings of fact, every one also supported by numerous citations to the evidence at trial), nor would its absence make any difference in the conclusions of law the judge reaches. Perkins cherry-picks that one fact only because it is the one that can be massaged to fit into his persecution.
Even if you believed that civil marriage equality would somehow affect religious believers (because some of them might see the conflict more clearly between what their religion professes and what the civil law accepts), or would even undermine some religions (to the extent that opposing homosexuality is part of the infrastructure of their morality), it is hard to see how this would lead to “religious beliefs being banned in America.” The same first amendment that prohibits the teaching of particular religions in public schools (without “banning” Bibles, by the way — yet more of the melodrama) also protects religious believers in the exercise of their religion, however much those beliefs differ with civic policy. Just because Perkins would not be able to prohibit same-sex marriage laws does not mean he is not allowed to believe, preach, or even ban within his congregation same-sex marriage or divorce or abortion or eating meat on Fridays.
It is, I’m sure, a disappointment for these religious believers to hear that their beliefs about the sinfulness of homosexuality are viewed differently by others. But how insular would your worldview have to be to be surprised by that? Certainly, they believe they are loving us by trying to steer us to an inner heterosexuality (or celibacy) that will better serve our long-term spiritual needs. But is it such a shock to learn that non-believers could find that presumptuous and condescending, and even a little bit injurious?
Harm alone doesn’t amount to a constitutional violation, and people who think they’re helping me are as free to hurt me in this way as I suppose I hurt them by saying that I think they hold wrong and harmful positions. The only reason they’re losing support is because they have so successfully blinded themselves to the idea that differences of opinion – even, and maybe especially religious opinion – is OK. That’s just a fact.
10 Comments for “Just A Fact”
posted by Lymis on
I agree.
How is this any different than allowing divorce, or contraception, or selling pork products, or any other thing that is allowed to citizens that is held as immoral by some religious tradition?
Is selling non-kosher food or allowing work on Saturday “banning” Orthodox Judaism?
posted by Jorge on
Speaking of melodramatic and quixotic rhetoric, you should see the fund-raising mail I get from Newt Gingrich and the Heritage Foundation.
In other words, don’t take it too seriously. The rhetoic is based on serious questions for which the correct response is not scorn, but refutation. That refutation being the proof that we are in fact moderate and committed to the principles of (in this case) religious freedom.
Unfortunately, I would not advise asking Newt Gingirich for proof. He tends to have a strong argument ready.
posted by Jim on
I’m a liberal Christian pastor. Christian theology actually teaches that every human being is a sinner and it doesn’t matter what sin or sins one has committed. A “little” sin is just as much of a sin as a “big” sin. Judge Walker’s ruling changes nothing in Christian theology. His point is that sinfulness cannot be a criterion for granting civil rights to anyone. If sinfulness is a criterion for civil rights, and every human being is a sinner, then no one has any civil rights. Religious beliefs are protected by the Constitution, not specified, and they cannot be the basis for granting or withholding civil rights from anyone.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Dammit, they’re stealing our schtick!
posted by Jorge on
Dammit, they’re stealing our schtick!
I predict you will be correct.
Let’s see what happens this news cycle, shall we?
posted by George on
It’s amazing how contradictory the results are in comparison to the rhetoric they’re using to defame us, to try to defeat us and to try to sweep away our rights to love one another.
There’s so much truth in this commentary, and more sweeping changes are on their way, too.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. In our polyglot society, where religious freedom essentially means none are enforced, and all are freely practiced to whatever extent an individual cares to express it.
That is to say, no house of worship can FORCE someone to attend. One can own their religious texts in their own homes. Pray and congregate in a place of like minded individuals, or have services in your home.
Houses of worship are allowed to distinguish themselves so that they are easily found by anyone who wants to inquire or join.
And even in public schools, taking private time to pray, read one’s religious texts or meet with someone like minded is totally accepted and acceptable.
The only restriction is not to have a class forced to do it, nor favor a specific religion.
Someone’s every day legal and private or even public aspect will offend SOMEONE’S belief.
Such as what’s been mentioned. Like eating certain foods, wearing certain clothes, using contraception, organ and blood donation, and mixed religion marriages.
But those who CHOOSE the religions that forbid them, cannot say that those who do engage in those activities are restricting the religious freedoms of others, nor can they demand that regardless of belief, the government must also ban those interests for others.
And look at how many people of certain faiths don’t complain if someone IS doing something that contraindicates what their religion requires.
For people like Perkins, them being denied ANY religious freedom. This is about them denying what is legal for everyone to do to begin with.
Which essentially is, not following whatever religious beliefs he has.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Oops. Typo. I meant to say this isn’t about them being denied religious freedom.
posted by Jorge on
Of course, none of what you say prohibits or discourages anyone from expressing or practicing their faith in public, freely and completely, without fear of harassment.
posted by bls on
The Methodists (and others) used to believe that dancing and card-playing were sinful, too. Somehow they managed to live in a society that didn’t ban either one….