Although the wave of battles now underway in several parts of
the country over religious freedom laws and LGBT rights may
come as a surprise to some people, it shouldn't. At least
since last year's Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex
marriage, and probably longer than that, it's been clear that
something like this was bound to happen.
Recall Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in the
Obergefell case holding that same-sex couples have a
constitutional right to marry. In that lengthy document
Kennedy devoted a single paragraph to the rights of religious
believers who disagree.
Such people, he said, "may continue to advocate with utmost,
sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex
marriage should not be condoned." But what of that? The
Constitution "does not permit the State to bar same-sex
couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to
couples of the opposite sex," he insisted.
Kennedy's words echo the secularist line that believers can
believe whatever they want, but values grounded in religious
faith must be overridden if they conflict with the
utilitarian calculus underlying secularist policy goals.
The most infamous instance is probably the "mandate" attached
by administrative fiat to the Affordable Care Act and
requiring church-related institutions and groups to include
coverage for contraception - including abortifacient drugs -
in employee health plans. The
Supreme Court May 16 sent the Zubik v. Burwell case back to
the lower courts.
More recently, the same-sex marriage ruling a year ago
touched off efforts to enact state-level religious freedom
laws exempting people with moral objections from having to
facilitate these unions. Some 20 states have adopted such
measures.
But the gay rights movement and its secular supporters
fiercely oppose such laws. In vetoing one In Virginia, Gov.
Terry McAuliffe called it "an attempt to stigmatize." To
which Arlington Bishop Paul S. Loverde and Richmond Bishop
Francis X. DiLorenzo, who supported the legislation, angrily
retorted, "We do not 'stigmatize,' we serve." They cited the
church's extensive educational and social services as
evidence.
The latest addition to this battleground concerns transgender
rights. North Carolina has come under sustained attack by
culture warriors of the left for having adopted a law that
would require transgender individuals to use public bathrooms
and showers designated for persons of their biological sex.
This was in response to the enactment by the city of
Charlotte of an ordinance taking the opposite tack on this
less than burning but notably tasteless question.
While there are real issues for discussion in some of these
lifestyle controversies, in times past many would have been
settled by moral consensus and good manners. Now, by
contrast, they become matters for legislation and litigation.
Twenty years ago historian Gertrude Himmelfarb published a
collection of essays reflecting on the cultural revolution of
the 1960s. The book was titled One Nation, Two Cultures, and
its conclusion was that the United States had become a
country starkly divided between two conflicting world views -
one based on traditional values, the other embodying an ethic
of relativistic individualism.
"Society is polarized in significant ways," Himmelfarb wrote,
"and those who deny or minimize this polarization are
obscuring the reality." But not to worry, she added. In the
end, "let us be content with the knowledge that the two
cultures are living together with some degree of tension but
without civil strife or anarchy."
That coexistence was fairly cold comfort even then. And if
Himmelfarb were writing now, one wonders, would she still
find grounds for being even this upbeat about America's
polarized cultural condition?
Shaw is a freelance writer from Washington and author
of American Church: The Remarkable Rise, Meteoric Fall,
and Uncertain Future of Catholicism in America (Ignatius
Press).