Over the past few years, we have witnessed a continued tension between the religious right and those supporting LGBT equality. In recent days, the Catholic Church in the United States and its leadership have renewed their fight against LGBT rights.
In a Catholic News Agency article (09/27/2011), they cite Robert P. George, a Princeton University law professor, who argues that, “Once a state recognizes same-sex partnerships as marriages or the equivalent, then naturally the argument is made that in family life classes in schools this has to be taught to be a valid partnership.” Perhaps Professor George forgot to denote that individuals have the right to send their children to private schools that are not required to teach the state-established curriculum on issues that are contrary to their beliefs.
Further, just as a child of Quakers will attend a history class that teaches them about war and its purported “achievements,” so would a life skills class teach what marriage is without forcing the child to accept a particular relationship or sexual orientation. To further emphasize this point, I remember being a first semester college student (studying to be a social studies teacher) and taking a “World Religions” class. The class was taken at a Catholic college and it taught us about all of the world’s major religions; however, I don’t think any of us left that class and changed our religious affiliation.
At the other end of the argument, Jay Michaelson (who I met at the American Academy of Religion’s Annual Meeting a few years ago) recently released his new book, God Vs. Gay? The Religious Case For Equality (2011, Beacon Press). I have not read a copy of the book yet (although I’d be happy to obtain a review copy – hint, hint); however, according to the Village Voice (09/27/2011), the book argues that “The moral principles in [the Bible] favor acceptance of gays and lesbians, outweighing the handful of ambiguous verses so often cited by conservatives.” Perhaps Michaelson’s book will help to unmask the rhetoric that the religious right has become dependent upon, by arguing that LGBT rights enhance religious freedom rather than stifle it.
Lastly, we have to remember that although the United States Constitution contains the statement: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” it does not say that the civil definition of terms such as marriage should conform to the definition of particular religious institutions. As Dan Bimrose points today over at The Huffington Post (09/27/2011), even our founders agreed that religion should not define our society. Bimrose quotes James Madison as having delivered the following statement before Congress: “Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.”
So what’s the point? Our founders did not establish an official religion, just as they didn’t establish an official language (in fact if they had established a language, it would have been German — more on that another time). With that in mind, gay rights groups are not infringing on the religious freedom of America’s Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Baha’i, etc., but rather are acting in a way which only enhances our nation’s religious landscape. We are not a country that merely adopts one religion’s definition of a particular status, but rather we are country that thoughtfully discerns the meaning of equality. As we discern the meaning of equality and come to understand our own humanity, we quickly realize that policy definitions that act to deny love between two people are antithetical to the American promise.
Enough with the rhetoric, after all whose liberty is it anyway?
Queer Faith News 