Over at Politico, Ben Smith writes, "A person who follows religion and politics more closely than I tells me the decision of two major conservative Christian leaders, Joel Hunter and David Gushee, to sign on in support of legislation outlawing 'hate crimes' against gays and lesbians, is a pretty big deal." He's referring to Faith in Public Life's Wednesday press release, listing expressions of support for the hate crimes legislation that passed the House that day. (When a bill is a sure winner, why not go with it, eh?)
First, I want to tackle Smith's assertion that the list of endorsers "also includes more usual Religious Left suspects like Rev. Jim Wallis." As I pointed out in this week's FundamentaList, Wallis has for years rejected the label of "religious left." He just recently started embracing it. Why? His spokesperson said the media apply it to him anyway, so why not? But could it be that as the country becomes more progressive, it's less icky to call oneself a lefty? Or is it that a genuine religious left is challenging Wallis and he wants to co-opt the phrase?
At any rate, the real religious left has advocated for full inclusion of LGBT people in every aspect of public life, not just their protection from hate-motivated crimes on the eve of a bill's passage in the House of Representatives. For more, read Dispatches from the Religious Left, or the work of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing.
Back to Hunter and Gushee. It's true that they're more advanced in their thinking on LGBT rights than most of their evangelical brethren. (That's a low bar, by the way.) If they could move evangelicals along on that front, that would obviously be a good thing. But I just don't see why such a big deal is made about an 11th-hour expression of support, after years of religious-right diatribe about what some call "the pedophile protection bill." I just don't think it's incredibly brave to come out for the bill after it's clear it's going to pass. Where were they in the last congressional session when the bill was in trouble?
When I saw the press release, though, I was most struck that this group had, for the first time, endorsed a bill supportive of transgender rights. I asked Gushee about that, and he replied, "I guess. Though I see this legislation as about protecting every kind of marginalized and vulnerable group. I was attracted, especially, to the issue of Hispanics in light of our national mania over illegal immigration." I pressed him on his view of transgender rights, and he said he was "absolutely" committed to protecting transgender people from hate crimes, but not, for example, from employment discrimination. (He does, however, favor that protection for gays and lesbians.)
I know the folks at Faith in Public Life will argue that their motivation is all about "building bridges" with religious communities to find "common ground" on contentious issues. That's fine. But let's not pretend that this group's last-minute support for the hate-crimes bill is a game changer or that they deserve more attention than the fully LGBT-inclusive religious left.
--Sarah Posner
