This week, my wife and I celebrate our eighth wedding anniversary. I remember the day we got married fondly. Surrounded by some of our closest friends and dearest loved ones, we made a commitment to one another and to God to be each other’s rock.
Eight years later, I can still confidently say that marrying her is one of the best decisions I’ve ever made.
We had a faith-forward ceremony. We sang hymns together, drew heavily from scripture, and prayed. Some of our friends joked that it felt more like going to church than to a wedding.
The first thing we did after saying our “I do’s” was to offer communion to the loved ones gathered for the ceremony. It was important to my wife (who was also a minister at the time) and me that our first act as a married couple was to share the embodied love of Christ with those we love the most. That faith is still the bedrock of our marriage today.
I share these wedding memories to highlight the hypocritical double standard that has long been at the heart of the marriage equality debate, recently revived by Kim Davis’ request that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. Davis had been removed from her position as a civil servant for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. After her dismissal, she insisted her religious liberty had been violated, as her faith said she couldn’t “condone homosexuality.”
These public statements are all too often painted as Christianity vs [insert contentious issue of the day], as if the Christian faith is a monolith. This monolithic conservatism is dubbed “traditional,” which is simply a dog whistle communicating that this understanding of Christianity is the only “true and correct” religion.
If we believe this version of Christianity to be true and correct, then of course we should model our society off it. Cue the Davises of the world, who wish to make it so.
If it had been my wife and me that Davis refused, would not her refusal to issue us a marriage license have been a direct attack on our religious liberty? As indicated above, our faith is something my wife and I take seriously. Whose faith wins out?
Well, my faith gets labeled as “nontraditional,” a dog whistle for progressive and (according to some) false teachings. In other words, not “real” Christianity. You already know how that plays out in public conversations.
Even though SCOTUS ultimately upheld the civil rights and religious liberties of queer people in this case, the very fact that reconsidering Obergefell v. Hodges was on the table reveals how faith traditions outside a particular strain of Christianity remain far from equal footing in the United States. Even more so, it shows that those committed to the “traditional” brand of Christianity are willing to resort to psychological harm—perhaps even psychological terrorism—to create the society they want.
Is calling it “psychological terrorism” a bit extreme?
Tell that to my friends who’ve had consistent panic attacks since learning that SCOTUS was going to discuss Davis’ request, wondering if they would be able to marry their fiancé after all. Tell that to my congregants, who’ve been anxiously wondering if overturning Obergefell v. Hodges would result in their marriages becoming nullified. Tell that to my wife and me, who have gone to great lengths to ensure we are each other’s executors and beneficiaries in our respective wills, regardless of our marital status.
Forcing the LGBTQ+ community to live in a constant state of fear harms our minds, bodies and souls. To do so under the guise of religious liberty is especially heinous.
The religion inspired by the life, ministry and teachings of Jesus Christ is much broader than this limited, fear-based ideology. This ideology does not glorify God, nor does it seek to give God praise. It only aims to position a certain few into power—those who fell for the temptations Jesus overcame after wandering in the desert.
As relieved as I am that the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling will stand (for now), I am frustrated. Celebrating that one of the most influential governing bodies in the country has decided not to entertain taking away a basic human right from a specific group of citizens is an incredibly low bar. It’s almost like throwing a party for a child for choosing just once not to bully his classmates.
You shouldn’t have to praise people for choosing not to do a harmful thing. Doing no harm should be the baseline assumption for how society works.
I hope that in the weeks and months to come, we can recalibrate ourselves to be in tune with the truly transformative love of Christ. Perhaps if we can be in tune with the flow of Love, we can tune out the dog whistles that beckon us to attack instead of listen, harm instead of heal, and destroy instead of create.
May it be so. Amen.
- About the Author
- Latest Posts
A bivocational pastor, writer and spiritual director based in Williamsburg, Virginia, she currently works as a Spiritual Director at Reclamation Theology. Cawthon-Freels is the author of Reclamation: A Queer Pastor’s Guide to Finding Spiritual Growth in the Passages Used to Harm Us (Nurturing Faith Books), and a contributing correspondent at Good Faith Media.
