By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Kim Davis, the former Kentucky County Court Clerk, has filed a lawsuit petitioning the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, seeking to appeal a ruling that requires her to pay damages for denying a marriage license to a gay couple. Davis, represented by the Liberty Counsel, argues her religious freedom is violated by the existence of marriage equality. Critics, like Dan Canon, believe the court is unlikely to take the case, although the current court is seen as politically motivated. The core argument, shared by some conservatives, is that the mere existence of same-sex marriage oppresses Christians, a perspective that could threaten LGBTQ+ rights.
Read the original article here
The Christian right claims marriage equality is persecution: Conservative justices are aching to declare that Christians are oppressed by other people’s marriages. It’s a complex issue, and it boils down to a fundamental misunderstanding of religious freedom. The core argument, often presented by figures like Justice Alito and Senator Ted Cruz, is that Christians are being oppressed because they are forced to accept or even acknowledge same-sex marriage. This argument hinges on the idea that if a person’s religious beliefs are not the law of the land, or not seen as the only “right” or acceptable way of life, then they are, in effect, being persecuted. It’s a claim that seems to arise more from a sense of injured pride and a resistance to changing social norms rather than actual hardship.
The rhetoric employed by some in the Christian right often conflates disagreement with persecution. They express that being labeled as a bigot for holding certain views is itself a form of oppression. This is exemplified by the case of Judge Brian Umphress, who feels persecuted simply because people might disagree with his view on marriage. This sentiment is often fueled by a “Christian persecution complex,” the belief that Christians and Christian values are under attack in the Western world. This complex allows for the framing of societal changes, such as marriage equality, as a direct threat to their way of life, while ignoring the fact that these changes do not directly infringe on their religious practices.
The historical and personal context surrounding these claims further complicates the matter. Figures like Kim Davis, with her multiple marriages, becoming the face of the anti-gay marriage movement expose a significant disconnect between personal conduct and the public pronouncements of morality. It’s a jarring contrast, and it underscores the hypocrisy at the heart of some of these arguments. It’s hard to take seriously someone who preaches the sanctity of marriage while repeatedly failing to uphold it in their own life. This disconnect highlights the selective nature of the moral code being applied and the lack of self-awareness in some of the loudest voices.
Furthermore, the idea that religious freedom should include the right to impose one’s beliefs on others is a dangerous one. The argument that Christians should be allowed to deny services or participation in public life because of their religious beliefs ultimately seeks to prioritize one set of beliefs over the rights and freedoms of others. This isn’t religious freedom; it’s religious dominance. It is not about the ability to practice your faith; it’s about the ability to force others to conform to your faith.
The Supreme Court’s inclination towards these arguments is deeply concerning. The rhetoric of the right, combined with the Court’s increasing tendency to rule in favor of religious exemptions, creates a situation where the boundaries of religious freedom are being redefined in a way that could allow for widespread discrimination. The justices’ stance in cases like *Bremerton School District v. Kennedy* shows how far they are willing to go to accommodate the religious beliefs of some, even when it comes at the expense of others’ rights. This Court’s direction could lead to serious erosion of rights and protections, and a shift towards an enforced religious orthodoxy.
The claim that Christians are oppressed by same-sex marriage is not only factually incorrect but also deeply cynical. The reality is that marriage equality poses no threat to religious freedom. Religious institutions are free to define marriage as they see fit and to refuse to perform same-sex marriages. However, the secular institution of marriage, which grants legal rights and protections, should be available to all, regardless of sexual orientation or religious belief. The attempt to conflate the two, and to present the acceptance of same-sex marriage as an attack on Christianity, is a strategic attempt to control and oppress.
Ultimately, the arguments being put forward by the Christian right are about power and control. They are about maintaining a social order that privileges their beliefs and marginalizes those who do not conform. The claim of persecution is a smokescreen, a way to deflect criticism and to avoid the hard work of engaging in a society where diverse beliefs coexist. It’s time to call this rhetoric out for what it is: a rejection of the principles of equality and tolerance that are essential to a just society. It is nothing more than a blatant attempt to impose their religious views on the rest of the population while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge any other viewpoints.