Bigotry by Any Other Name Betrays a Similar Stench

The history of this nation is littered with countless instances of people committing reprehensible acts of injustice under the pretense of “living out their faith.”


Xavier Becerra is a name few Americans may recognize, but one I trust will become increasingly familiar. Becerra is the attorney general of California, and pursuant to Assembly Bill 1887, he has recently updated California’s travel ban prohibiting state-funded travel to states that authorize “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression” as well as “discrimination against same sex-couples.” States currently subject to that ban include Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas. Howls of protest have erupted from various parties, whether this policy affects them or not. Nevertheless, the rationale for California’s travel ban is unassailable, and jurisdictions that share California’s commitment to fairness and equality should follow its lead.
Readers will recall North Carolina’s notorious bathroom law, enacted in 2016, which removed local protections for transgender individuals. That law led California to prohibit state-funded travel to North Carolina. Here, rather than rehearse North Carolina’s bigotry and the repercussions that ensued, I cite a similar instance of intolerance, one that involves the state where I currently reside. Alabama House Bill 24, enacted this year, allows faith-based adoption agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples based on “sincerely held religious beliefs.” This law has led California to add Alabama to its list of destinations to which state-funded travel is prohibited.
The day after HB 24 was signed into law, an editorial in The Tuscaloosa News defended the policy, claiming it “does not allow for discrimination” but instead “allows religious-based adoption organizations to live out their faith.” In a letter to the editor published several days later, I challenged the flawed reasoning of that opinion, and I want to encourage those reading this essay to do likewise, whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.

The history of this nation is littered with countless instances of people committing reprehensible acts of injustice under the pretense of “living out their faith.” It was people “living out their faith” who hanged nineteen women convicted of witchcraft in New England in the late seventeenth century. It was people “living out their faith” who enshrined the practice of slavery in this nation’s Constitution. It was people “living out their faith” who refused to grant women’s suffrage until 1920. It was people “living out their faith” who put John Scopes on trial for teaching evolution in a public school. It was people “living out their faith” who perpetuated Jim Crow with intimidation and violence. It was people “living out their faith” who imposed laws against contraception until 1965. It was people “living out their faith” who enforced anti-miscegenation laws until 1967. It was people “living out their faith” who criminalized homosexual activity until 2003. It is people “living out their faith” who still deny women access to reproductive health care. Now, despite the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that state-imposed bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, people are invoking religious belief as an excuse for discriminating against same-sex couples.

People often quote these words from Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia: “[I]t does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Unfortunately, few recall the statement immediately preceding those familiar words: “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others” (Query XVII). In each of the instances noted above, the government has exercised its “legitimate powers.” In each case, acts “injurious to others” have been deemed unlawful—even though such acts were long condoned by the majority’s “sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Like similar laws in other states, Alabama’s new law protects no one’s religious freedom. Instead, it callously imposes the bigotry of private adoption agencies on children entrusted to their care by the state, and it unjustly limits the rights of same-sex couples eager to provide loving homes for such children. It is my hope that the courts will soon strike down this law and others like it.

As Jefferson observed, some religious beliefs are harmless. If people want to believe in a divine being or a blissful afterlife, they should be free to do so. However, a religious belief that limits the freedom or liberty of others should never enjoy government sanction. Although religious beliefs can sometimes be harmless, religious bigotry never is. The free exercise of religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment, but it never warrants the infliction of harm upon others.

Through the actions of their elected officials, the citizens of California have taken a significant step in the right direction. Yet that effort is not enough. All who share California’s commitment to fairness and equality must enlist in the fight to denounce bigotry and to dismantle its consequences wherever it persists.

0 comments: