How Can We Fight The Underlying Motives And Pathologies Of Religious Homophobia?
LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, & Questioning) Americans have come a long way throughout the late 20th century and today. It was only in 2003 that sexual activity between two mutual adults was officially legalized in the United States. The landmark Supreme Court case, Lawrence vs. Texas struck down “sodomy” laws in Texas and in other thirteen states. The outcome of this landmark case was the pinnacle point for LGBT activists. However, there were additional discriminatory laws that gay rights advocates wanted to confront such as the right for gays to marry, access to housing, and employment.
Eleven years later, there have been drastic developments within the gay rights movement in the United States. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the policy regarding gay and lesbians serving in the military has been repealed. Officers are now allowed to serve openly in the military. Another landmark case, United States vs. Windsor struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, (DOMA), which stipulates that federal government agencies must recognize same-sex couples and unions. This has led to other circuit courts throughout the United States to end gay marriage bans in several states. Currently, same-sex marriage is legal in thirty-five states. There have been a number of anti-discrimination ordinances passed throughout certain counties and cities. Despite these advancements on LGBT rights, there are still challenging issues affecting the LGBT population in 2014. Religious homophobia and anti-gay violence still takes precedent over the lives of gays and lesbians. Homophobia or anti-gay bias has taken on a cunning, yet disingenuous direction. For example, the term religious liberty is reconceptualized into an idea that permits homophobic religious followers to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Creating the illusion of “religious liberty” has been a useful strategy among anti-gay religious organizations and advocates. This method attempts to transform the role between the individual who imposes the anti-gay bias, and the individual receiving discriminatory treatment. Simply put, the religious liberty approach intends to portray the anti-gay bigot as the victim, and the victim as an anti-religious bigot. Last year, a bakery in Oregon denied service to a lesbian couple that wanted to order a wedding cake. The couple sued the bakery for discriminating against them. The owners of the bakery claimed that they did not want to serve the lesbian couple, based on their religious beliefs about homosexuality and marriage. The Bureau of Labor in the state of Oregon determined that the bakery did indeed violated the lesbian couples rights, based on an anti-discrimination law that protects gays and lesbians in public places. The bakery established itself as a place of business that was meant to serve the public. It had not established itself as a religious establishment, until they denied service to the lesbian couple. In defense, the bakery owners claimed the lawsuit was an attack on their religious liberties, and the $150,000 fine they must …show more content…
Since same-sex marriage is spreading all throughout the United States, religious and conservative organizations have utilized the exemption of religious liberty to continue anti-gay discrimination and homophobia. Actress and comedian, Whoopi Goldberg stated that “If you’re not into gay marriage, don’t marry a gay person.” The statement implies that its fine to disagree with the idea of same-sex marriage, but this disagreement should not develop into a legal enactment that regulates the LGBT population to second-class citizens or denies them business and medical service.
The nature of some religions is to share their beliefs to others as a means to recruit new followers. For example, many Christian denominations have practice proselytism for centuries. This practice has been protected by the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The establishment of tax-exempt churches, missionary work, religious speeches, and pamphleting in public spaces are all facets of religious freedom and expression. However, the constitution states “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This means that although one has a right to practice their religion, another has the right not to practice or follow any religion. It is a fair balance between religious freedom and freedom from religion. Yet, the rise of religious organizations is taking hold in the political and state
LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, & Questioning) Americans have come a long way throughout the late 20th century and today. It was only in 2003 that sexual activity between two mutual adults was officially legalized in the United States. The landmark Supreme Court case, Lawrence vs. Texas struck down “sodomy” laws in Texas and in other thirteen states. The outcome of this landmark case was the pinnacle point for LGBT activists. However, there were additional discriminatory laws that gay rights advocates wanted to confront such as the right for gays to marry, access to housing, and employment.
Eleven years later, there have been drastic developments within the gay rights movement in the United States. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the policy regarding gay and lesbians serving in the military has been repealed. Officers are now allowed to serve openly in the military. Another landmark case, United States vs. Windsor struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, (DOMA), which stipulates that federal government agencies must recognize same-sex couples and unions. This has led to other circuit courts throughout the United States to end gay marriage bans in several states. Currently, same-sex marriage is legal in thirty-five states. There have been a number of anti-discrimination ordinances passed throughout certain counties and cities. Despite these advancements on LGBT rights, there are still challenging issues affecting the LGBT population in 2014. Religious homophobia and anti-gay violence still takes precedent over the lives of gays and lesbians. Homophobia or anti-gay bias has taken on a cunning, yet disingenuous direction. For example, the term religious liberty is reconceptualized into an idea that permits homophobic religious followers to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Creating the illusion of “religious liberty” has been a useful strategy among anti-gay religious organizations and advocates. This method attempts to transform the role between the individual who imposes the anti-gay bias, and the individual receiving discriminatory treatment. Simply put, the religious liberty approach intends to portray the anti-gay bigot as the victim, and the victim as an anti-religious bigot. Last year, a bakery in Oregon denied service to a lesbian couple that wanted to order a wedding cake. The couple sued the bakery for discriminating against them. The owners of the bakery claimed that they did not want to serve the lesbian couple, based on their religious beliefs about homosexuality and marriage. The Bureau of Labor in the state of Oregon determined that the bakery did indeed violated the lesbian couples rights, based on an anti-discrimination law that protects gays and lesbians in public places. The bakery established itself as a place of business that was meant to serve the public. It had not established itself as a religious establishment, until they denied service to the lesbian couple. In defense, the bakery owners claimed the lawsuit was an attack on their religious liberties, and the $150,000 fine they must …show more content…
Since same-sex marriage is spreading all throughout the United States, religious and conservative organizations have utilized the exemption of religious liberty to continue anti-gay discrimination and homophobia. Actress and comedian, Whoopi Goldberg stated that “If you’re not into gay marriage, don’t marry a gay person.” The statement implies that its fine to disagree with the idea of same-sex marriage, but this disagreement should not develop into a legal enactment that regulates the LGBT population to second-class citizens or denies them business and medical service.
The nature of some religions is to share their beliefs to others as a means to recruit new followers. For example, many Christian denominations have practice proselytism for centuries. This practice has been protected by the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The establishment of tax-exempt churches, missionary work, religious speeches, and pamphleting in public spaces are all facets of religious freedom and expression. However, the constitution states “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This means that although one has a right to practice their religion, another has the right not to practice or follow any religion. It is a fair balance between religious freedom and freedom from religion. Yet, the rise of religious organizations is taking hold in the political and state