Last month, the U.S. Senate passed the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act of 2018, which makes it a federal crime to injure or murder a person “because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person.” The bill seems like a reasonable idea unless you belong to Liberty Counsel, an advocacy group whose message is based on conservative Christianity. Liberty Counsel is intolerant of the LGBTQ movement and views the media as a threat.
Liberty Counsel chair Mat Staver sees the bill as an opening for the LGBTQ community to gain more rights. “The old saying is once that camel gets the nose in the tent, you can’t stop them from coming the rest of the way in,” Staver said. “And this would be the first time that you would have in federal law mentioning gender identity and sexual orientation as part of this anti-lynching bill.”
Stated another way, Staver doesn’t want the LGBTQ community to be treated like everyone else.
Jonathan Alexandre, director of public policy for Liberty Counsel, criticized the media for creating the “false narrative” that Liberty Counsel opposes a ban on lynching members of the LGBTQ community. While he stated clearly that Liberty Counsel opposes anyone being lynched, Alexandre said nothing about Staver’s concern about LGBTQ people having the same civil rights as the straight community.
I appreciate that different faith traditions may have different views on how the LGBTQ community fits into their system of beliefs. I may not agree with those groups, but it’s their right to hold whatever religious beliefs they choose. What I don’t understand is how any group can justify the idea that a LGBTQ person doesn’t deserve the same civil rights as anyone else. When it comes to civil law, it’s our humanity that counts, not one’s sexual identity.
Liberty Counsel doesn’t recognize that civil law doesn’t have to mirror religious views. Ours is not a theocracy, but Liberty Counsel views all things through a religious lens, as evidenced by its view on marriage:
“Civil institutions do not create marriage nor can they manufacture a right to marry for those who are incapable of marriage. No civil institution, including any court, has authority to redefine marriage any more than it can redefine gravity. Redefining the institution of marriage is improper and outside the authority of the government. The institutions of civil government should defend marriage and not seek to undermine it.”
I don’t know the basis for Liberty Counsel saying government does not have the right to determine who can marry. Government absolutely has the right to define the laws by which we live—it’s part of the societal contract—and, generally, those laws are aligned with the morals taught by most faith traditions, but sometimes there’s a variance, as with marriage.
Government can permit gays to marry in civil ceremonies, and Liberty Counsel has the right to prohibit gay marriage within its faith tradition. But Liberty Counsel’s objection to civil rights for gays stops at the church doors.
____________________________________
Jack D’Aurora writes for Considerthisbyjd.com
___________________________________________________
ShareJAN
About the Author: