Conscientious Compassion

Making Space for Religious Conscientious Objection

What happens when religious rights and LGBT rights conflict?

Today, the Kentucky clerk, Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples because doing so would violate her religious conscience, was released from jail after six days' incarceration for contempt of court.

Mrs Davis was jailed for violating a Federal Court order that required she issue marriage licences to same-sex couples, following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that state-level bans on same-sex marriage are illegal. Mrs Davis refused to issue the licences, and refused to permit her deputies to issue them as a compromise. 

On 31 August, after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant her stay request, Mrs Davis made the following statement, clarifying her position with regard to same-sex marriages and her religious conscience:

"I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience. I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will. To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God's Word."

Kim Davis's predicament has led to a stark polarisation of views. Many people with strong religious beliefs, and certainly all, or almost all, of those who are opposed to same-sex marriage on religious grounds, regard her treatment as a fundamental breach of her civil rights; whereas the bulk of the LGBT community and its allies, including, it seems, the U.S. legal establishment, share the perspective that Kim Davis's refusal to issue or to authorise the issuing of the marriage licences is a breach of the civil rights of same-sex couples.

This issue, and the crisis it has caused for some people of religious belief, is not one that is restricted to the U.S.A. As I write this in the United Kingdom, there are registrars here who, for reasons of religious conviction, have found themselves to be unable, in good conscience, to marry same-sex couples, who have had a legal right to a civil marriage since March 2014. Indeed, this is an issue that will be relevant to any country where same-sex marriage is legalised. 

When the news of Kim Davis's incarceration was broken on Thursday, there was near-unanimity in the LGBT community in welcoming the decision and condemning her for refusing to sign the marriage licences. It appeared to most of those who supported the decision to be a black-and-white issue: there was a law, and Kim Davis was refusing to comply with it, and it was as simple as that. Parallels were drawn by way of example with other circumstances where most people would regard it as totally unacceptable for a public employee to discriminate against same-sex couples in the provision of goods and services. In the LGBT community, and in the pro-LGBT community, there has been very little sympathy for her.

Kim Davis was faced with a "Heaven or Hell decision"

My own view is that there is an empathy lacuna in evidence here. This is, in a sense, understandable, given the misrepresentation of gay and lesbian people and of our relationships that so many adherents of fundamentalist religious beliefs assert as accurate, and given the fact that such adherents have also historically made great efforts to impede LGBT equality, and indeed continue to do so. A measure of Schadenfreude, and an unwillingness on the part of many to go that extra mile in examining the issue of Kim Davis's predicament with a more open heart and mind, are hardly surprising. The opposition to and vilification of homosexuality by religious fundamentalists have caused immense suffering to LGBT people, and continue to do so. There is no appetite in the LGBT community at the moment for putting down the pitchfork.

At first hand I have experienced this kind of religious homophobic harm, when, as a gay teenager, I got involved in an evangelical Christian church, and I have written about my experience of major clinical depression that resulted from it. When I was younger, and angrier, I would certainly have had no truck with the complaints of religious fundamentalists of the kind that Kim Davis is making, and I would have rejoiced at her being sent to jail. 

Same-sex marriage is also an issue of great importance to me, and I joined in with the U.K. campaign to support our Prime Minister in his attempts to change the law. 

Yet it seems to me that the LGBT community, and our friends, would do well to remember the maxim, "Grace in defeat; generosity in victory." In the liberal West, at least, the LGBT community has been immensely victorious in terms of the gains made on the road to equality, and the transformation that has come about in the past two decades with regard to combating homophobia. There is more to be achieved, but a great number of positive things have happened.

However, there can be, or so it seems to me, a mean-spiritedness in large sections of the LGBT community when dealing with those who, for whatever reason, have not been allowed by their psyche to take this liberal and enlightened journey with the rest of their society. As a community, we are often failing to deal with others in a spirit of psychological flexibility and generosity; we are failing to recognise that kind, good-hearted people with strong religious beliefs, who harbour absolutely no ill-will towards LGBT people, and who might be the very people who would step in to help us as individuals if we were in some kind of crisis, might not support same-sex marriage, but that this does not imply they "hate" gay people. 

(This accusation of "hating" gay people is one that I have seen levelled against Kim Davis on social media, and that is commonly used against those who oppose same-sex marriage. Hyperbole that disapproving of same-sex marriage implies hatred of gay people is a paradigm example of the kind of warped thinking that gets generated by strong negative emotions. Having said that, there are also certainly some religious adherents who do show marked hatred towards LGBT people and our relationships.)

We are locked in a situation where religious fundamentalists look at gay people and gay relationships through a distorting lens of inflexible, literalistic belief in their holy books, and fail to see things as they really are; while, in return, many LGBT people look at people such as Kim Davis through a distorting lens of anger, and similarly fail to see things as they really are. People are so often prisoners of their beliefs or of their belief systems, yet people are not identical to their beliefs. This is an illusion that narrows perception, and obscures the beauty in the other person, their kindness, their willingness to help in situations of crisis, their own struggles with dogmatic religious beliefs, perhaps also including struggles with what they think they are required by their religion to believe about homosexuality. 

This ossification of the other person into a set of aversive beliefs only serves to encourage delusion: a delusion of one-dimensionality and of permanence; of the other person only consisting of their homophobic religious beliefs, and nothing else, and of the other person being incapable of positive change, of being incapable of modifying their position over time as a result of calm persuasion and of their own experience: including the experience of meeting gay people who impress them, and meeting gay couples whose love contradicts their false beliefs. 

LGBT equality has progressed immensely in the West

The LGBT community has come such a long way in the liberal West in terms of wider social acceptance and legal equality. However, now is the time for the really challenging work: reaching out to those who have negative religious beliefs about homosexuality, and gently trying to change their hearts and minds. This isn't done by shouting them down, by vilifying them, by distorting the perception of them as complex human beings, by demonising them as people. It is instead achieved by demonstrating generosity of spirit, by engagement, by breaking down barriers and stereotypes, by acknowledging the good, and the potential for even more good, in other people: even in people who disagree with us.

This paradigm of generosity has a lot to do with forgiveness: showing good will and generosity towards someone who has harmed us in some way, and recognising their humanity, recognising the fact that they too are someone who struggles and suffers; whilst still continuing to disagree with them. One significant aspect of forgiveness is that its benefits are bidirectional: and forgiving other people for their wrongdoing - which does not mean excusing it - can make it so much easier for us to forgive ourselves, and to be generous to ourselves. Especially where there is a lot of anger and resentment to be healed, as is the case among gay people, who have been, and continue to be, appallingly misrepresented and harmed by people with dogmatic, inflexible religious beliefs.

The LGBT community could certainly benefit from a little more introspection and self-criticism. During my thirty years as an LGBT activist, I have gained the impression of increasing inflexibility, intolerance and dogmatism in respect of what opinions members of the LGBT community at large, and of the wider community, are permitted to express. Opposition to same-sex marriage is just one example - even though both President Obama and the UK LGBT equality campaign "Stonewall" were once opposed to same-sex marriage: a fact that now seems to have been airbrushed out of the LGBT collective psyche. Supporting the Conservative or Republican Party, or the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP opposed same-sex marriage) are further examples of behaviour that generally receive little tolerance from the LGBT community. 

Even "judging" someone else for their "lifestyle" seems to have become something that will provoke challenge from the collective LGBT consciousness these days: stating that someone with HIV should always wear a condom if he has casual sex, or saying he should always disclose his HIV status to a potential sexual partner, is apparently being "judgemental", and not acceptable. Criticising a section of the LGBT community that frequents the gay club scene for using illegal drugs that harm their own health, bolster the criminal drugs industry, and cause them to make bad decisions with regard to safer sex, is also "judging" people, which apparently we are not allowed to do. The maxim seems to be, "If it's gay, it's ok." I regard that as very far from acceptable; and I am convinced that, far from avoiding "judgements" about behaviours that exist, or are even prevalent on the gay commercial scene, it is crucial for the LGBT community to be self-critical, and judgemental towards its own flaws, if it is to grow and mature as a properly nurturing and supportive community. 

So, while the mean-spiritedness and blinkered vision towards religious adherents who oppose LGBT equality is understandable, in the sense that fundamentalist religion has done so much to cause suffering to LGBT people, this same mean-spiritedness and blinkered vision is a toxin that will continue to damage the LGBT community itself if it is not addressed and processed. We need to mature, to expand, to recognise our strengths and weaknesses, and to strive to continue improving, so that we can, as a community, serve ourselves and one another better, and serve the wider social community better. This development also requires a greater degree of generosity and sophistication in dealing with cases such as the predicament of Kim Davis.

There is scope for generosity in victory

Kim Davis's situation seems to be similar to the plight of some registrars in England, Scotland and Wales who officiate at same-sex marriages as registrars. Unlike the registrars, Kim Davis was elected as a clerk, and cannot simply be dismissed. It seems that impeachment would be the only way to remove her, which would be a complex, expensive and time-consuming business. It seems unlikely she will ever agree to issue the licences and comply with the court order, given that this is such a serious matter of spiritual conscience for her. The compromise for which she is asking is that her name and title do not appear on the licences for same-sex couples that are issued by her deputies, and it remains to be seen whether this compromise is accommodated. I, for one, am not holding my breath.

Allowing the licences to be issued without Kim Davis's name or title on them seems to me to be a reasonable accommodation, but the Zeitgeist is proving to be opposed to making any accommodations at all to religious conscientious objectors when there are changes in the law of the kind represented by same-sex marriage. It should be borne in mind that, prior to the introduction of same-sex marriage, whenever people sought employment as registrars, or sought election as clerks, there seemed to be no likelihood that the law would ever change to allow same-sex couples to marry. They accepted the office or employment in good faith, with an understanding of working conditions that were later to change very significantly. In a sense, where religious conscientious objectors are concerned, their contracts have changed in a way that has made it impossible for them to continue doing their job, which some would say comes close to the concept of constructive dismissal.

So many people are saying that Kim Davis should either agree to authorise the licences, or else resign; but both options are ones that are punitive. She has explicitly made clear the theological significance of authorising the licences:

 "It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision."  

This statement gets to the nub of the matter. Most fundamentalist Christians believe that they will be punished for wilful wrongdoing of which they do not later genuinely repent, by being consigned to Hell. For mainstream Christians (i.e. the majority), Hell is a place of spiritual alienation and separation from God; however, for so-called "Bible-believing" Christians, hell is a place of eternal physical and mental torment, where people are literally burned alive in a lake of fire for eternity without dying. This is a thoroughly ugly and evil belief, and it is an insult to any loving God to suggest He would be capable of such psychopathic cruelty; but the fact remains that so-called "Bible-believing" Christians do believe this. That is where they are, and on this issue, it is important that they are met where they are. So in effect, a large number of people are expecting Kim Davis to do something that she believes will result in her being tormented for eternity in a lake of fire. No wonder she isn't very enthusiastic about that.

The far less harrowing alternative would be for her to resign. But even this would result in a punitive outcome for her (albeit far less punitive than eternal combustion), where she will lose her livelihood and her income; and this would result directly from the conditions under which she sought office having changed dramatically since she was elected, to the extent that she can no longer accept them. 

A complex human being exists behind dogmatic beliefs

Many would assert that resignation would be an appropriate resolution to this issue. Instead, Kim Davis is trying to protect her livelihood, and trying to make a point on behalf of others who might find themselves in a similar situation. A credible case can admittedly be made for denying religious conscientious objectors any accommodations in these circumstances, and that case is being made by some of Kim Davis's critics. I have heard the argument that, following the legalisation of inter-racial marriage in the U.S.A., we would not have regarded accommodations for clerks who opposed it as appropriate. However, I think a stronger case can be made for accommodations for existing clerks and registrars whenever same-sex marriage is introduced in a country, given that, when they originally committed themselves to their office or their employment, they did so in the belief that marriage would only ever be defined as between one man and one woman. It surely must be possible to make arrangements for such people with religious conscientious objections to cede same-sex marriages, or involvement in same-sex marriages, to another colleague who did not object to them, and to avoid their name appearing on any same-sex marriage licence.

Even if we believe that LGBT civil rights must always trump religious civil rights when they conflict, there is still surely no need for us to fetter our discretion, and there is always room for that generosity in victory to which I referred earlier. Why should we be as rigid, inflexible and legalistic as the religious fundamentalists whose beliefs and behaviour we are criticising? The important thing to remember about forgiveness and generosity is that they do not need to be deserved, and that they are nonetheless always within the gift of a person to bestow if he chooses to do so. Forgiveness and generosity are moral gifts that enhance both the receiver and the giver, and they recognise the common humanity and the common fallibility of both parties. 

Any accommodation need not necessarily extend beyond existing clerks and registrars, so that anyone seeking any such position in the future would need to commit beforehand to obeying the law with regard to the marriage of same-sex couples. A flexibility offered to existing officials and employees would not mean an excessive sacrifice, yet it would ease the transition at this time of radical readjustment in history. It would simply enable existing clerks and officials to continue in their jobs until retirement, or until the end of their term in office. If a clerk who opposed same-sex marriage wanted to stand for re-election, he would need to sign a declaration that he would honour the ruling of the Supreme Court if re-elected.

One detail that the LGBT community, and the LGBT-friendly community, should usefully bear in mind, is that many fundamentalist Christians have LGBT children too, and that many fundamentalist Christians become more liberal, flexible and sophisticated in their beliefs as time progresses. A small olive branch could go a long way towards preventing a further hardening of hearts, which could in turn help the LGBT children of religious dogmatists who harbour prejudices about gay people and gay relationships. 

Forgiveness is also a gift to the one who gives it

In fact, after so much success, challenging stereotypes, misconceptions and prejudices in dogmatic religious communities may be the next great challenge for the LGBT community to face. Much progress has been made in terms of equal rights legislation and social acceptance of gay people in the community at large, and trying to change the minds of dogmatic religious communities might be the really hard work that represents an aspect of how further progress is going to be made with the elimination of homophobia. We see religious dogmatists writing about the "Gay Agenda" and the "Gay Mafia"; and when we fail to act in the expected way, when we fail to respond to these communities in a way that displays inflexibility, harshness and an unwillingness to compromise, we succeed in making a small contribution towards undermining those prejudices. Yet when we behave as expected, we hand propaganda to the adversaries of LGBT equality on a plate, and confirm their prejudices. 

The propaganda that has been provided to religious opponents of equality in the Kim Davis case is very powerful indeed: to the extent that, by sending this lady to jail because her job has changed unexpectedly and she is now expected to violate her religious conscience, she has been made into a religious martyr. This will only serve to entrench anger, resentment and prejudices, and will encourage more Christians who oppose same-sex marriage to follow suit.

Do same-sex couples really want the name on their marriage licence of a person who opposes their marriage, and who doesn't want their name to be on it? And where registrars in the UK and elsewhere are concerned, do same-sex couples really want to be married by a person who opposes their marriage, and is only officiating under duress? Is this really something that they want to be a part of their special day?

Islamist cruelty towards LGBT people

Furthermore, compared to the unspeakable atrocities carried out against LGBT people in Islamist states such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, and by Islamofascist fanatics such as ISIS, doesn't a request by a clerk or a registrar to follow their conscience by opting out of involvement with same-sex marriages amount to very small beer? Should we not be reserving our outrage and fury for those who hang, imprison and flog gay people, and for those who commit the unspeakable cruelty of throwing gay people from high buildings, or stoning gay people to death?

It is, in my view, a great pity that transitional measures have not been put in place to spare people with religious conscientious objections the agony of choosing between losing their livelihood and acting in a way that they believe will result in eternal torment. There is a very important place for generosity in victory, for forgiveness, for compassion, and for attempting to see the humanity and the potential for growth in a person that exist beyond their religious legalistic inflexibility and ignorance. If the LGBT community wants society to be better, it needs to model the kind of values that will bring positive transformation about; and to do that, it first needs to be willing to identify its own shortcomings, and work to correct them.

© Gary Powell, 2015