In the controversy over the Indiana law, comparisons are again being made between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage: We’ve all realized that banning interracial marriage was bigotry and wrong; we should admit the same about same-sex marriage. One commentator drew the comparison on another line claiming that bigotry of interracial marriage was religiously motivated.
The comparison is not an accurate one in any way.
Frank Beckwith has made the observation that the ban on interracial marriage was not one that was founded on nature and natural function. Couples have been marrying interracially for millennia. It was a relatively recent move to ban it by law that was motivated out of hatred and racism. Race has nothing to do with the natural function of marriage and procreation. That’s why it’s been a rare thing historically to ban it.
This is fundamentally different than same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage has never been practiced before, in any culture, at any time in history. There’s never been a ban because it never happened. That’s the opposite of interracial marriage.
While many of the bigots in the past used the Bible to justify their actions, this was always a minority of people who claimed to be Christians. And the movement for treating all people equally has been deeply grounded in the Bible. As has happened many times over the years, religion was misused to justify their sin, but the Bible did not motivate the sin.
Critics claim that the Indiana law protecting religious conscience will be used to discriminate against gay people. You know what reason we have to be skeptical of that claim? The bakers and photographers who’ve objected to being compelled to participate in same-sex weddings have no history of refusing service to gay individuals. Their conscientious objection is to the activity of a wedding for gay people, not against gay individuals. There’s a significant difference between baking a cake for a gay person’s birthday and baking a cake for a wedding celebration of a same-sex couple. No one has claimed a conscience objection to the former, only the later.
There’s another real difference between the Indiana law and Jim Crow laws. The Indiana law gives religious people a standing if sued to defend themselves against illegitimate discrimination. The law doesn’t compel them to do or not do anything. Jim Crow laws compelled businesses to deny service to individuals, even if they objected to the discriminatory laws. Business owners had no freedom to provide service, even when their religiously-informed consciences objected.
The comparison between the religious objections to same-sex marriage and interracial marriage is a false one. They should be corrected at every opportunity. Religious liberty protection should be extended in the cases of participating in the celebration of same-sex marriage because it’s in no way like Jim Crow.
Indiana’s law was modeled on the federal 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which found overwhelming support from Democrats and Republicans, and was signed into law by President Clinton. And as Governor Pence has pointed out, in 1998, then-state Senator Barack Obama voted in favor of Illinois’ religious freedom legislation.
Posted by: Francesco | April 04, 2015 at 08:10 AM
When some law gets passed that makes it illegal to do business with homosexuals, then you can legitimately bring out the "Jim Crow" comparisons.
Posted by: Mike | April 04, 2015 at 09:39 AM
My understanding is not that the law makes it illegal to do business with homosexuals. It protects religious freedom. So another words, if a pornography business asks me to promote their business (I own a digital marketing company), I can deny it based on religious belief. I can deny them service. It's something that seems completely logical to me. Should there really be a reason we have to make people give service to someone? Shouldn't they be able to decide who they want to serve and who not and vice versa? I'm at a loss as to why the government must decide this.
Posted by: Jared Berryman | April 06, 2015 at 11:22 AM
"The comparison between the religious objections to same-sex marriage and interracial marriage is a false one. They should be corrected at every opportunity."
I do. But people will NOT hear it. It doesn't matter how many times I've explained it in detail, in their minds it's *exactly the same* and nothing will dissuade them from that view. Nothing.
It's absolutely maddening. It's like the entire world has gone insane!
Posted by: Mo | April 06, 2015 at 08:34 PM
The world is insane by definition: a derangement of the mind.
Americans have been taught to reject logic. They call it bullying if you dare be persistent enough to point out their innumerable fallacies to demonstrate their error. They treat reason as if they can pick and choose from it without consequence and refuse to interact with sound argumentation. It is an evil that I cannot fathom that amounts to nothing but the most arrogant form of narcissism. The ruination of our society is at hand. Proverbs 1:20-33
Posted by: Chris Hamilton | April 07, 2015 at 07:51 PM