Over the past decades the United States has engaged in a great struggle to balance civil rights and religious liberty.
On the one hand, there is a growing consensus that straight, gay and lesbian people deserve full equality with each other. We are to be judged by how we love, not by whom we love. If denying gays and lesbians their full civil rights and dignity is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. Gays and lesbians should not only be permitted to marry and live as they want, but be honored for doing so.
On the other hand, this was a nation founded on religious tolerance. The ways of the Lord are mysterious and are understood differently by different traditions. At their best, Americans have always believed people should have the widest possible latitude to exercise their faith as they see fit or not exercise any faith.
While there are many bigots, there are also many wise and humane people whose deeply held religious beliefs contain heterosexual definitions of marriage. They are worthy of tolerance, respect and gentle persuasion.
Never miss a local story.
At its best, the gay rights movement has promoted its cause while carefully respecting religious liberty and the traditional pillars of U.S. society. The cause has focused on marriage and military service. It has not staged a frontal assault on the exercise of faith.
The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was supported by Sen. Ted Kennedy and a wide posse of progressives, basically holds that government sometimes has to infringe on religious freedom in order to pursue equality and other goods, but, when it does, it should have a compelling reason and should infringe in the least intrusive way possible.
This moderate, grounded, incremental strategy has produced amazing results. Fewer people have to face the horror of bigotry, isolation, marginalization and prejudice. Yet I wonder if this achievement is going off the rails. Indiana has passed a state law like the 1993 federal act, and sparked an incredible firestorm.
If the opponents of that law were arguing that the law tightens the federal standards a notch too far, that would be compelling. Instead, the argument seems to be that the federal act's concrete case-by-case approach is wrong. The opponents seem to be saying that claims of religious liberty are covers for anti-gay bigotry.
This deviation seems unwise both as a matter of pragmatics and as a matter of principle. In the first place, if there is no attempt to balance religious liberty and civil rights, the cause of gay rights will be associated with coercion, not liberation. A movement that stands for tolerance does not want to be on the side of a government that compels a photographer who is an evangelical Christian to shoot a same-sex wedding that he would rather avoid.
Furthermore, the evangelical movement is evolving. Many young evangelicals understand that their faith should not be defined by this issue. If orthodox Christians are suddenly written out of polite society, this would only halt progress.
Religious liberty is a value deserving our deepest respect, even in cases where it leads to disagreements as fundamental as the definition of marriage.
Morality is a politeness of the soul. Deep politeness means we make accommodations. The movement to champion gay rights is now at a point where steady pressure works better than compulsion. It's always easier to take an absolutist position. But, in a clash of values between religious pluralism and equality, that absolutism is neither pragmatic, virtuous nor true.
New York Times