Religious Liberty AND the Law

I initially thought about entitling this post "Religious Liberty vs. the Law", but that just didn't say it quite right. There are many who seem to be setting up the religious liberty arguments as unduly adversarial and overarching--that my expression of religious liberty should trump all other considerations. But that is no way to live in a pluralistic and civil society. In fact, the only way to guarantee everyone's full and complete expression of religious liberty is for each individual to live in geographic and geopolitical isolation. Within the context of a society built on the rule of law, I believe that we must strive to protect each individuals' right to religious freedom. But religious liberty must fit within the context of a civil society.

Does the elected county clerk in Kentucky have the right to refuse to issue marriage licences to gay couples? At a personal level, yes, BUT NOT if she wants to keep her public job. As an elected official, she must choose whether or not she will do her job--plain and simple. If not, then she should be honorable and resign--not be obstinate and go to jail for contempt. By the way, it is VERY important to note that to the extent that she is prosecuted or jailed it is NOT about marriage licences; it is about failing to abide by a lawful Court Order.

If this involved a different underlying issue, we would not be having these discussions. If a state-employed cafeteria worker refused to serve an overweight patron his double cheeseburger, fries, and a shake because gluttony is a sin, there would not be any discussion of religious liberty. We would simply shake our heads and the worker would be unemployed. But in the bigger picture, the Kentucky situation is not about anyone's views on gay marriage; it is about how people will live together in a multi-faceted and non-theocratic society built on the rule of law.

And what a great society we live with. If there is a law that I do not agree with and that I believe is wrong, then I have free access to the legislative process to change the law. If I prevail in changing the offensive law, then good for me. But as a member of this society, I have a duty to abide by the laws that are in force; or to remove myself from their jurisdiction--or face the consequences.

The law is not antagonistic to religious liberty. In fact, without the rule of law, we would have no hope of continued religious liberty. What I believe is missing in this cultural dialogue--and would love to see and hear--is guidance and discussion from our religious leaders about how to live and love well in a multicultural, multi-faceted, and non-theocratic society where others' views and beliefs often differ from my own. The way the discourse seems to be going, I am not going to hold my breath. (Of course, I would also like to see a reasonable and electable presidential candidate--and world peace.)

-KP