IT IS commonly thought that politics and religion are topics too controversial to be discussed in polite company. Yet the Rev. Irene Monroe provocatively held forth on both topics as she lectured a packed house at the Kaleidoscope Lounge last Monday. Perhaps it is not surprising that Monroe attracted such a large crowd, as she described the purpose of her lecture to "inform the public of the role religion plays in discrimination against LGBT people and how religious intolerance and fundamentalism not only shatters the goal of American democracy, but also aids in perpetuating other forms of oppressions such as racism, sexism, 'classism' and anti-Semitism." These are stands that attract special controversy today, as it was but a few weeks ago that our Christian conservative president was reelected by a nation rigidly divided on religious grounds, and particularly polarized by issues of "gay rights."
Monroe was certainly provocative, as she spoke in rapid-fire fashion, jumping from one heated issue to the next. In a relatively short lecture, Monroe worked in discussions of Jesus, O.J. Simpson, Sept. 11 and the Charlottesville serial rapist, among many, many other topics. She opened with a discussion of Thomas Jefferson's affair with Sally Hemmings, charging the venerable Virginian with "dipping in chocolate" and violating his marriage vows. Much of Monroe's talk verged on the humorous, if unintentionally, as she drew uproarious laughter by wondering aloud whether any of Jesus's twelve apostles were gay.
Yet for all of her over-the-top qualities, Monroe did have a serious point to make. Monroe decried conservative Christian denominations for "trampling on civil rights in the name of Jesus," and argued that "the ministry of Jesus is about inclusivity." She called marriage "an inalienable right" that cannot constitutionally be denied to gay people. Monroe also attempted to tie the gay rights movement by implication to the struggle for rights for African-Americans, and blasted black churches for ignoring issues of gay rights.
But Monroe's stands are not without costs of their own, to those of us who do not share her moral convictions on homosexuality. If Monroe is right, is it morally tenable to permit discrimination against gays in our society? The distinction between state action and private action is a blurred and indistinct one, and one that may not be tenable in light of Monroe's strong criticisms of anti-gay discrimination.
Monroe did not squarely address these questions, however. She said, "you can have your point of view to the extent it does not oppress me," but that does not resolve anything. As UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh notes on his blog, "The broad gay rights program isn't just about increasing the freedom of gays; it is also about decreasing the freedom of those who don't want to associate with gays in various ways." Antidiscrimination laws, a key component of the gay rights agenda, would restrict the associational rights of individuals who do not wish to associate with homosexuals for moral reasons or otherwise.
And if history is any guide, churches will not be immune either. In March of this year, the California Supreme Court upheld application to a Catholic charity of that state's law, enacted in the name of ensuring equal rights for women, mandating employers to offer insurance coverage for contraceptives, a stand opposed to the religious beliefs of the Catholic church. In the 1970s, in an action upheld by the Supreme Court, the IRS withdrew the tax exemption of Bob Jones University for its racially discriminatory policies, despite Bob Jones' claim that these practices were motivated by scripture.
The gay rights movement, at its core, is a movement for the hearts and minds of America. Yet as such, it wishes to force its moral values on society as surely as evangelical Christians do. Monroe may say she preaches toleration, but we should realize that her views have consequences for the rights of all of us, gay or straight.
Noah Peters' column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at npeters@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 4 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
