Posted at the Christianity Today site is Fairness for All: Evangelicals Explore Truce on LGBT and Religious Rights. It reports on efforts by some in the evangelical community (which includes those whose politics lean liberal) to support federal legislation modeled on a Utah compromise bill that the state enacted last year. Going national, the aim is to “bring together religious liberty defenders and LGBT activists to lay out federal legislation to secure rights for both.”
There’s bad news, however:
…several prominent religious liberty advocates—including the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention—that opposed the Utah compromise model aren’t on board with Fairness for All either. … [and] much of the momentum around LGBT advocacy also resists such compromise.
But there’s good news, too:
Even without a specific proposal to parse, evangelical leaders are doubling down on the need for deeper discussion, as well as outreach to government partners and LGBT groups.
It’s a nice thought but a tough sell. As I’ve said before, the idea of letting President Trump sign a federal LGBT rights bill, especially one with (gasp) religious exemptions, would be anathema to the Human Rights Campaign and other Democratic party auxiliaries.
And so the (culture) war wages on. And a decision in Illinois is just more grist for the mill: Christian-owned bed and breakfast must host gay weddings, state panel finds.
20 Comments for “A Way Forward, with Much Opposition”
posted by Walker on
This is a Communist idea.
posted by TJ on
Quite a few people have been saying that we can respect religious freedom and civil rights.
I am glad that Stephen and other people might be interested, but Its an uphill battle
posted by TJ on
The HRC is worried that religious exemptions will make all civil rights optional.
They base this on how poorly the bulk of the exemptions have been written and the fact that the religious right has shown every willingness to see every good supreme court verdict, every important legal and social reform ripped into a thousand pieces.
posted by JohnInCA on
I’m always fascinated by how much power Mr. Miller thinks the HTC had over the GOP.
I mean let’s face it, about the only way that HTC will be able to “stop” legislation for the next two years (minimum) is by endorsing it.
posted by JohnInCA on
HRC, not HTC. Stupid autocorrect.
posted by TJ on
Agreed. The Human Rights Campaign cannot actually prevent the President or the Congressional majority from passing a good civil rights beyond bill. That’s not how things work and the HRC ain’t the most powerful lobbyist by a long shot.
posted by Houndentenor on
“HRC ain’t the most powerful lobbyist….” LOL Now that’s an understatement. HRC has never successfully gotten any legislation through Congress. Not even an amendment to another bill. Nothing. Which is why Stephen’s fixation on HRC as some sort of power-broker in DC is so delusional.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It is heartening to see at least some of the more rational conservative Christians are willing to advance “equal means equal”, and I have no objections to religious exemptions to laws that meet the Sherbert/Yoder/RFRA criteria: religion-neutral, issue-neutral, class-neutral, applicable to all laws of general application.
I don’t think that we would have gotten into this mess if conservative Christians and their Republican allies had not been so determined to limit religious freedom along the lines that Governor Pence, conservative Christians, and Republican politicians insisted on in Indiana.
Americans owe them all a great, big, noisy, sloppy rasberry for their stupity.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Okay, let’s cut through the abstractions in your link — what would be a practical example of a law that would meet these criteria?
Also, “Equal Means Equal” is a sloppy bumpersticker slogan. I submit that a tightly-worded Same-Sex Domestic Partnership law is, for practical purposes, equivalent to a Same-Sex Marriage law — and that if Marriage is in some way “more dignified-er,” this additional dignity can only come from the freely-given applause of neighbors, not from government fiat.
posted by JohnInCA on
“I submit that a tightly-worded Same-Sex Domestic Partnership law is, for practical purposes, equivalent to a Same-Sex Marriage law.”
Please go read Judge Walker’s decision in the Prop 8 case. He enumerated the failings of “compromise” positions.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Okay, let’s cut through the abstractions in your link — what would be a practical example of a law that would meet these criteria?
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
Also, “Equal Means Equal” is a sloppy bumpersticker slogan.
Exactly. It is shorthand.
A longer form: All citizens, including without limitation gay and lesbian citizens, are entitled to equal treatment under the law, granted the same rights and burdened by the same responsibilities as others similarly situated, without differentiation or discrimination as a class unless differentiation as a class and/or discrimination in treatment under the law is essential to the common welfare, and in cases where distinction/discrimination between classes is essential, government will discriminate in as limited a way as possible consistent with the common welfare.
And that statement, of course, is shorthand, too.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I submit that a tightly-worded Same-Sex Domestic Partnership law is, for practical purposes, equivalent to a Same-Sex Marriage law.
That ship has long since sailed and sunk, deservedly so.
The “marriage equivalence, but not marriage equality” movement (e.g. Rauch/Blankenhorn, “A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage”, NYT, February 2009) was never anything other than an attempt to reserve marriage for heterosexuals, setting gays and lesbians apart for special, discriminatory treatment.
I’m surprised that you are hanging on to the Lost Cause. It was never a good idea or a practical idea, entirely apart from the fact that legal equivalence is not legal equality.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Downstairs, JohnInCA offered:
Oh no he di’int!
But you know what, JohnInCA? I’m feeling just a bit lazy right now, so I implore you to help me out by quoting one or two lines from Walker’s decision that — in your judgment — clearly make the case for the inferiority of civil unions.
Because what I seem to recall is that Walker made no effort whatsoever to show that civil-union laws were objectively “second class.” Instead, he relied on his telepathic ability to discern that Prop 8 supporters were motivated by anti-gay animus, and pissed all over Whitney Houston by arguing that people who prefer same-sex civil unions to same-sex marriage actually CAN “take away my diiiig-ni-teeee.”
posted by Jorge on
Too sharp?
Dignity is a great concept. It’s what lets me get away with telling subordinates and members of the public alike, “My position is ‘screw you.'” Members of the public hit right back by telling me the exact same thing–on something else, and at a time not of my choosing. Subordinates fight me on the exact same decision. Sometimes the money makes people stupid.
The great state of South Carolina is about to say that a mass shooter should be judged to die. Dignity demands that the reason first be known, shown to the killer himself, and that he answer, one kangaroo court for the worst criminal to protect a million other defendants from death.
posted by Jorge on
Um, I forgot to delete that first line in editing (I’ll not tell you my first version)
posted by Jorge on
“To look at these older data points and rules only shows us that legislation did not take into account religious freedom,” she said. “They weren’t Fairness for All. They were sexual orientation and gender identity antidiscrimination statutes that did not answer the hardest questions.”
Oh, so you want to write law by looking at the hard cases? Doesn’t that make bad law? <3
Did I ever tell the story about how a New York City-based group took its national gay marriage movement's call for a day of charitable giving especially to/with faith-based organizations (you know as a kind of goodwill break the ice measure), and made it into an attempt to bribe a NY legislator to switch caucuses?
I'd say that's an only in New York story, except these days it seems the "only in New Yorks" are the people who have been controlling the gay rights and other progressive movements.
Saying that many LGBT advocates "resist" compromise generously assumes they have the developmental capacity to understand and demonstrate it.
The HRC is worried that religious exemptions will make all civil rights optional.
I think they should be more worried that the backlash against political correctness will make all civil rights optional.
In the Time of Trump, the political realities governing our country will regress into a more primal state of being (at least I hope they do!). Instead of demanding their rights, people must take them. Obviously they should help gay couples sue, but because those laws are gradually going to be repealed or sidelined, they must be ready to step in with the replacements. Instead of defending the borders (where frankly far too many people of the other country live anyway), they must talk more about the heartland of civil rights.
posted by Houndentenor on
After January 20 the GOP will have both houses of Congress and the presidency. If they want to pass such a bill, they will be able to do so whether HRC or anyone else objects. Now in power will Republicans compromise on gay rights? Or is compromise just something Democrats are expected to do?
posted by Jorge on
Now in power will Republicans compromise on gay rights? Or is compromise just something Democrats are expected to do?
Republicans have been asked to compromise for years on gay rights, immigration reform, racial justice, the environment… and opposed outright on foreign policy.
There will be only one compromise: the wall gets built now, or the wall will be 10 feet taller. Thus Democrats will need to fight to keep the wall 15 feet shorter (so it’ll even out).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’m feeling just a bit lazy right now, so I implore you to help me out by quoting one or two lines from Walker’s decision that — in your judgment — clearly make the case for the inferiority of civil unions.
I don’t what areas of opinionthe opinion JohninCA would point to, but I would point you in the direction of Findings of Fact 52, 53, 54, 58, 59 and 60, for starters:
52. Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.
53. Domestic partners are not married under California law. California domestic partnerships may not be recognized in other states and are not recognized by the federal government.
54. The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships.
58. Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.
59. Proposition 8 requires California to treat same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples.
60. Proposition 8 reserves the most socially valued form of relationship (marriage) for opposite-sex couples.
I apologize for exceeding your “one or two line” limit, but WTF?
The opinion is permeated with discussion of the differences between civil marriage and civil unions (e.g. the loss of tax revenues and whatnot) but the Findings of Fact listed are the ones I consider most important.
Because what I seem to recall is that Walker made no effort whatsoever to show that civil-union laws were objectively “second class.”
You recall wrong.
Instead, he relied on his telepathic ability to discern that Prop 8 supporters were motivated by anti-gay animus, and pissed all over Whitney Houston by arguing that people who prefer same-sex civil unions to same-sex marriage actually CAN “take away my diiiig-ni-teeee.”
Read the opinion. Thobert, then pontificate. Blowing it out you ass doesn’t cut it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Instead, he relied on his telepathic ability to discern that Prop 8 supporters were motivated by anti-gay animus, and pissed all over Whitney Houston by arguing that people who prefer same-sex civil unions to same-sex marriage actually CAN “take away my diiiig-ni-teeee.”
The following is the “animus” section of the opinion, appearing at pages 132-135. It is worth a read for those of you who were not actively involved in fighting the anti-marriage amendments, circa 2004-2008. It is a concise statement of the kind of bullshit that the anti-marriage crowds laid on us across the nation.
Notice that every factual statement in the section is carefully tied to trial evidence, not “telepathic ability”. Enough said.