On Friday, President Barack Obama condemned legislation limiting LGBTQ rights recently passed in Mississippi and North Carolina.
This is the most recent comment in the backlash against Mississippi’s House Bill 1523, which was signed into law on April 5 and guarantees clergymen, business owners and state officials the right to discriminate against LGBTQ persons if doing so aligns with sincerely-held religious beliefs.Though Mississippi’s law was heralded as “probably the worst religious freedom bill to date,” by Ben Needham, director of Southern LGBT advocacy group Project One America, UM professor Jaime Cantrell said it is important to view this bill as a part of a larger movement across the region targeting the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual and queer community.
Cantrell, who taught the inaugural queer theory course at The University of Mississippi in 2013 and who currently serves as faculty adviser to the UM Pride Network, said this bill must viewed within the context of surrounding states’ anti-LGBTQ legislation.
“I’m especially troubled by rhetorics in the media that position this bill as worse, or new, amidst a <host> of other hate bills. That’s always very scary, when we begin to establish a hierarchy of legalized hate ,” Cantrell said. “This bill isn’t an outlier or an anomaly. It’s important to keep in mind that it is part of a new discriminatory segregationist movement across the region, across the South.”
Bills similar to Mississippi’s have passed or considered in 19 states, including North Carolina, Michigan, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, Arizona, California, Alabama, and Alaska. Although many of the bills pertain to different facets of living as a LGBTQ individual, Cantrell said they each suggest a backlash to the national legalization of gay marriage in June 2015.
“I think this is sort of a checkmate move at the state level responding to national LGBTQ rights that we’ve gained,” Cantrell said. “I think it’s important to consider what investments the state has in determining who is welcome and who is not in public and private spaces and what accesses are denied on the basis of sexualities.”
For some, however, like Andrew Soper, an ASB senator and junior business major, House Bill 1523 is purposed to protect the rights of religious individuals, not discriminate against LGBTQ persons.
“I commend Gov. Bryant for taking this action and signing this bill into office,” Soper said. “To me, what this does is make the state government neutral in this situation. It doesn’t take sides; it just doesn’t interfere or interact with the issue.”
Soper said he felt many who opposed the bill were basing their opinions on second-hand knowledge from news media and other outlets without having actually read the bill. He said it is important to remember this bill pertains to marriage ceremonies and not regular business.
“It says in the constitution that you can’t openly discriminate against anybody,” Soper said. “I don’t think if a gay couple goes into a restaurant the owner could come out and say ‘You can’t eat here because you are gay.’ You can’t do that.”
The bill was written in a way that could be broadly interpreted, Soper said.
“It can be misinterpreted in many ways,” Soper said. “What I like about the bill is it allows Christians to refuse services that go against your religious beliefs. I don’t think it’s right to openly discriminate just because someone is different than you. When it comes to a pastor marrying a same-sex couple or a business owner saying they don’t want to participate in a same sex ceremony, though, I think that’s right.”
Rob Hill, state director of Human Rights Campaign, said a pastor’s right to deny marriage to same-sex couples within the church was never threatened.
Rob Hill, state director of the Human Rights Campaign in Mississippi, said house bill 1523 further disenfranchises an already vulnerable population. (Photo by: Clara Turnage)
“Legislators say, ‘This was intended to protect churches and pastors,’” Hill said. “Pastors always had that protection. The government cannot dictate whom you marry. If your denomination prevents you from marrying a same-sex couple, you don’t have to do that. The government will never say that. That’s ludicrous.”
Hill, who was a Methodist minister before he surrendered his credentials to marry his partner and become involved with the Human Rights Campaign, said he believes the guise of pastoral protection was a tactic for legislators.
“They knew what they were doing with this,” Hill said. “(The bill is) useless as it relates to pastors, but it’s very useful as it relates to a religious person in a taxpayer-funded role.”
Hill said this bill pertains to far more than just marriage ceremonies, and it could actually be dangerous. Religious-based hospitals that are governmentally funded, can employ policies that do not recognize same-sex couples.
“That’s dangerous, especially in emergency situations,” Hill said. “We’re talking about lives here. If you receive taxpayer-funding, you have to do your job and follow the law and if you can’t follow the law, you need to find something else to do.”
Hill said the bill, worded to protect religion, does not follow Christian precepts.
“As a person of faith, I’m troubled by this,” Hill said. “My role and my goal as a pastor, my mission, was to bring people in. When we look at the gospels, we see Jesus doing it all the time – redefining for the Jewish people who our neighbors are. Very often, to the people who were thought to be on the outside, Jesus said, ‘There is no outside.’”
Hill said he believed legislators were pandering to an overestimated minority.
“Our legislators think this is something that will get them votes,” Hill said. “I honestly think that’s what they care more about – about getting reelected in our state, not doing something to increase our population and job growth.”
Regardless of how legislators perceive the bill, Hill said his organization will continue to fight it.
“There are people who are fighting against this. Our legislators need to know that. We’re going to call on more and more people to get involved,” Hill said. “We realize that when laws change, hearts and minds don’t automatically change. We’re going to keep working to change hearts and minds.”
