Skye Perryman on marriage equality and our legal right to dignity

In this third episode on civil rights, Skye and George look at the question of marriage equality in our country. They discuss the notion that in a democracy people have a right to basic dignity that "does not draw distinctions because of the color of your skin, because of who you love, because of your sexual orientation, because of your gender identity." They also consider the complications of religiously-affiliated organizations receiving federal money, the civil rights history of religious traditions, and what it means to build a more perfect union.

Skye Perryman is the President and CEO of Democracy Forward. She is a lawyer, advocate, and leader with a track record of taking on and winning critical fights that advance democratic values, stop abuses of power, and improve the wellbeing of people and communities.

Watch the video, here.

[00:00:00] George: Welcome to Good God, conversations that matter about faith and public life. I'm your host, George Mason, and today on this edition. Talk with Skye Perryman again. This is our third conversation with her. She is the president and CEO of Democracy Forward Foundation, and she has been at work in Civil Rights Matters legally and culturally for many years.

She is going to talk with us in this episode about the state of marriage equality which grows out of a concern. For whether same sex marriage will continue to be honored throughout the nation in the wake of the Dobbs decision on reproductive rights that suggested that maybe the previous decision Obergefell would be overturned on a similar logic.

As the Roe versus Wade decision, what all [00:01:00] that means is that currently the lay of the land is that we have across the nation. The recognition of same sex marriage as being a legal right. If it were to fall back to the States, then they could determine whether that state would accept or acknowledge same sex marriage.

We have developments since the midterm elections and in Congress. To address that matter, and we'll be talking about those and we'll be talking about the implications of these for religious institutions, both congregations and also schools, universities with respect to their right. To make their own decisions based upon religious conscience and religious doctrine versus the challenge of whether in doing so they should be eligible to receive public funds for their [00:02:00] work.

Well, these are challenging questions and we'll get greater clarity because we have Skye perryman with us again. So now here again, Skye.

 Skye Perryman, welcome back to Good God for our third conversation on important matters of public life. We're glad to have you with us. Great to be here. Terrific. So in this. We really wanna continue something that we started in our first conversation about democracy the state of democracy and how that is playing out in key matters of public concern and personal concern as well.

We talked in our last episode about reproductive rights and abortion, and in this episode I'd like us to look at the question of marriage equality and the place of LGBTQ freedom [00:03:00] and inclusion in our Culture generally, and then in some specific instances and institutions also. So to set the conversation in current timeframe in the decision of Dobbs, which was specifically geared of course to the Roe versus Wade decision being overturned.

We had Justice Clarence Thomas say that on the same basis that it was overturn. We should go back and revisit things like marriage equality, the Obergefell decision, which happened in 2014, I believe, if I'm not mistaken. No, it was 2016, wasn't it? Any, in any case, the idea that the Supreme Court gave marriage equality to same sex persons, and that would be the law of the land. [00:04:00] So that sent that decision, those words by Justice Thomas, sent a shockwave through the gay community that had begun to depend upon that decision for their equal rights everywhere in the country, that no longer would this be a state matter, that it was a human right that was protected. And what we have, I think, to begin with is that word from Justice Thomas then led the Democrat Majority in the Senate to propose and pass the Respect for Marriage Act, which is not yet law because the. The house needs to also pass it and then the president sign it. But this respect for Marriage Act law now says that [00:05:00] if anyone has been married in a state that permits same sex marriage, then it must be recognized in every other state and that there.

There are protections for religious freedom that churches and religious institutions do not have to acknowledge these things or abide by the, rules of non-discrimination in these matters. But that these marriages will be protected. So what is your take on the implications of Dobbs, first of all for marriage equality and Justice Thomas's statement about that from a legal point of view?

[00:05:44] Skye: I think what hopefully Dobbs has shown people, including your listeners, is that when people tell you what they're aiming for or tell you, show you who they are, we need to start believing them for years prior to Dobbs. [00:06:00] The far right and religious extremists were clear about their intention to overturn Roe versus Wade.

Many thought that that advocates who defended Roe versus Wade were over exaggerating that this could never happen. There was very. Concerning polling that suggested, even in places like Texas after SB eight went into effect that people, the majority of people thought their right to abortion was somehow still secure because we do have some expectations in a democracy that there are some things that should be so fundamental.

And so I'm hoping what Dobbs showed is that when you see language and opinion, like what we saw with Clarence Thomas, that we need to take that seriously. And when you see websites and far right extreme legal organizations, That have made it very clear that they do not support the equal dignity of people.

That they believe that equality is an optional thing and that some people [00:07:00] just aren't entitled to it because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. That we need to take this very seriously. These are well funded, highly coordinated, extreme movements that in many instances have influenced seats of power, such as some at the Supreme Court that I think will do what they say or will seek to.

What they say they're gonna do. So first of all we need to be very clear that Dobbs concerned Dobbs, I mean it concerned the as a good legal matter, it concerns the sort of precise questions that were in front of the court at the time. But we've seen time and again, language from justices like Justice Thomas forecasting, where this right wing legal movement wants to go.

And I think that when you see that we need to take it very seriously one of the most effective things that far right extremists have done is lure people into believing that something like a democracy doesn't really require a fight that it's democracy just [00:08:00] exists, or that these rights exist and that is not the case. And so I think it's incredibly important that people be vigilant wherever they are, whether they're, in the United States, Senate, state, houses throughout the country, judges in courts, lawyers that that bottom line is the law of the.

Is what we saw in the Obergefell decision, and that remains the law of the land. It should be the law of the land. But I think that we definitely have some reasons continue to have some reasons to be concerned about a movement that wants to shut that down. 

[00:08:33] George: Yes. And sometimes they do tell you what they're intending to do, and sometimes they tell you that they're not intending to do that.

Because we, have cases of several of these Supreme Court justices who were very clear in their judicial hearings that that they believe that this was precedent, and that it, it should [00:09:00] stand and that they had no intention of overturning Roe, and yet they did so and now, when Justice Leader writes in Dobbs that this does not app apply more broadly beyond this, and Justice Thomas says it does, it's hard to know whom to believe given the track record.

[00:09:20] Skye: I think Well, and I think we have seen like you said, time and again. And so I think one piece of this and this is not political. People say, well, no, it's not others have made this political, it is not political. It's at this point factual. But one piece of this is we have to look at what's behind these movements.

Like what is behind a legal theory that would suggest that all people in the United States really aren't equal or a legal theory that would suggest with respect to jobs that half of the country should not be able to make intimate decisions about their [00:10:00] lives. Those things.

What is behind that is a well funded sort of special interest movement that has really pushed sought, to push people to very extreme positions. And I think we have to be on guard there. 

[00:10:13] George: So it's interesting that in this respect for Marriage Act, we have the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Having filed an amicus brief saying that they supported well, and maybe it wasn't an amicus brief, it wasn't a legal a question but a, supportive position of the respect for Marriage Act, which contradicts their own church. About same sex marriage. And so they are interestingly supporting a bill that would respect same sex marriages as law, even in say, a Mormon dominated state like Utah.

[00:11:00] But, At the same time, this law gives their church the right not to perform same sex marriages and not to hold an, opinion that is, is enfranchised in the law. And so we, have a kind of inside, outside aspect to this. And I, think this is another curious place where we have a particular issue in this case.

About equal protection under the law in the 14th Amendment for marriage equality. And the question of the First amendment's, religious freedom, which is the right of churches, essentially to dissent from that at the same time. And so sometimes we, find ourselves with clashing principles legally and culturally.

How do you. How do you see this matter falling out for people of religious convictions [00:12:00] that that might disagree? 

[00:12:02] Skye: I think there is and fundamentally when we're dealing with the civil rights issues, which all of these issues we've been talking about are fundamental civil rights issues, this notion that in a democracy that people are entitled to a certain amount of individual dignity that they have inherently, that the law needs to recognize.

Now, you cannot force individual people not to be racist. You cannot force them not to be homophobic. You cannot force people not to, be bigoted. We, can't control what people do. And if those people wanna get together and be racist and bigoted together that is not something that one can control.

But where it becomes very concerning from a legal perspective is when there are institutions that seek to benefit from the. Domain that seek to benefit from [00:13:00] federal funds that seek to benefit from certain special tax laws that seek to obtain and benefit from something that is available because we are a national community and then not wanting to abide by.

What we know and in a democracy are the rules of the game for a national community, which as we've talked about in the first episode, are constantly becoming we need them to become more perfect. This is a journey. It has not been a hundred percent right, and certainly now instead of going forward, there's a lot of reasons to people are trying to push backwards.

But, that to me is the, concerning. Piece is, it's really not an individual per a person. We can't control what are in people's minds, how they go out and wanna conduct their lives. But when you seek to benefit from public goods and from the public and from the country and from the country's laws, there are some rules of the game.

And that's, [00:14:00] always been the case. And, that is what I, think that's where some of these things come into. 

[00:14:07] George: Well, okay, so let's be specific. When you raise that your beloved Baylor University is a case in point, right? So you are an alumna of Baylor University and you have been actually advocating for the school to be more inclusive.

To be defending the rights of LGBTQ students. And we know of course that that's been a difficult struggle at Baylor because of its Ba Baptist roots. Its Baptist identity. It's relationship to the Baptist General Convention of Texas, which is an organization of churches that actually disqualified [00:15:00] disfellowshiped my church when we decided to be inclusive of LGBTQ persons and support a marriage equality.

So they've been walking. A fine, a tight rope there. And the students have been largely frustrated by the, lack of progress in that matter. And in, the effort to become a tier one research institution that would qualify Baylor for substantial federal grants for science and research they they have.

Numerous gains in, that direction, but then also want to retain their religious identity with the right to restrict their understanding of what is a biblical notion of human sexuality [00:16:00] that is permissible on the campus. And. It's difficult to see, as you're saying. I think that they can have it both ways.

So what would you want to say about that for not only Baylor, but other religiously affiliated universities who similarly are receiving federal money but not abiding by these matters of civil rights. 

[00:16:28] Skye: Well let me say from a personal perspective and then we can move to the kind of more principle basis cuz you started with my sort of personal affiliations, Baylor.

From a personal perspective what has motivated me in thousands of Baylor alumni many of whom are ministers hundreds of Baylor faculty, the faculty senate, the student body every the overwhelming and overwhelming. Majority of people is that it's the right thing to do.

And [00:17:00] and I think that when many of us affiliate with institutions that seek and that say that they are in it for the right thing to do, we expect them to live up to that. Word. And particularly for those of us that have affiliated with the Christian tradition, which values everyone equally and sees everyone as a child of God then we need to treat everyone equally.

We need to affirm people. We need to be there for them. And that's what we, I think many of us from a personal perspective, wanna see the university do because it's the right thing to do and it's just irresponsible and wrong. To have students that are not, that are being that are being marginalized or outcast.

And we see that in a lot of communities. Baylor struggled. They were very slow to integrate racially. And then we see this unfortunate pattern now playing out with its treatment of LGBTQ students on campus and, Still needing to make strides [00:18:00] for racial equity. So I think that's on a personal level, we want people doing the right thing.

That's what everybody is talking about. If, I step back and look at what do these principles mean broadly in American society? I think, look, there has always been some, the tension and balancing act, but our laws do provide the ability for. The ability for institutions to operate the way they wish to operate.

And then the real question is what happens when you're avail availing yourself of public goods when you want millions of dollars in federal research money when you want to be able to be seen in these broader places? And I think it's really important that people have information. And for instance the Department of Education maintains a list of univers.

That have sought exemptions so that they can discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation, based on their gender. I Baylor at one point sought a [00:19:00] religious exemption early several decades ago because of because of with respect to women and wanting to be able to entitle men to certain scholarships and benefits in the religion department, not women.

You one can go seek those things, but it's important to be very open and honest about you're an institution and this is what you're standing for because with that, I think you give up. The right to certain public benefits and to, to certain broad kind of respect and acceptance.

With respect to LGBTQ students, Baylor has not sought a religious exemption, but yet it has maintained separate policies. And that's a real concern to a lot of people. I think it has made some strides and we were continuing to hope that it will make more strides. But I think.

These are areas where you know, seeking a license to discriminate should not entitle institutions to the ability to [00:20:00] benefit from public goods that are seeking to be available to all people. And it's very important that civil rights laws be enforced and that civil rights be respected particularly when institutions are seeking to benefit from the public from the public good. 

[00:20:16] George: So here again, I think we have a matter we discussed on the abortion question of different religious perspectives coming to bear on the law and there are differences of opinion among religious people, including Christians, about whether. LGBTQ persons should have full rights and equal opportunity under the law because some Christians view biblical passages to prohibit that within the church, and they don't believe they should be taking [00:21:00] positions publicly either that would endorse what they consider to be sinful and.

Other Christians like myself and people of other religions also believe that's a, an interpretation of scripture, but not the only one. My interpretation of scripture does not match that. In fact, I think it's important for people to hear that the word homosexual does not even appear in the English Bible until 1946 when some interpreters of the revised standard version.

Actually interpreted a particular word in that broad sense, which created a new fact on the ground for people as they read the Bible and, did not understand the historical context of that passage. But nonetheless, what we have here Skye are again, competing religious convictions on [00:22:00] this matter culturally that are being brought to bear.

On legislation about civil rights. And again, we should say that churches are not required to do anything outside of their convictions on this matter, but there is a question of whether the public sphere must comply with their religious convictions. So again, how to a. This question of bringing faith into legal legal matters, right?

[00:22:39] Skye: Yeah. And I think a little dose of history here can be really helpful. There were a number of religious traditions and still are that don't believe that women should be. Equal. There were a number of religious traditions that were very clear in the Jim Crow South, that they did [00:23:00] not believe that all people were equal and that they thought that white people were superior, and they sought to write this into their way of living based on what they said was a religious conviction.

Now that totally offends any spiritual commitment or. Conviction that I might have or that you might have. But we cannot deny that this is a pattern that has appeared in American history and it didn't just first start with the fight for LGBTQ equity. We have seen. People seek to use a particular religious perspective that is discriminatory and dehumanizing in order to try to make gains from a policy perspective or to re entrench a policy perspective that is marginalized people.

And while people can have any number of their own personal views, I think you're right to name. The real question is what is the role in our society of [00:24:00] the government and of of the public sphere? And I think the, more perfect union that we seek to still be building, even when there are so many people that want us to go backwards, is one that recognizes that there are, there is a fundamental equality of all people.

And that if somebody doesn't wanna ascribe to that, Maybe they don't ascribe to that in their personal life. But at the point that you want public benefits and public goods you need to be able to. To abide by our basic civil rights laws in the country. And so I think that's, I think there, there is a definite mix of, the personal and of the of the role of government.

But I think in our pluralistic society the role has to be that we can't allow one narrow conviction dominate and be entrenched in, our laws. And [00:25:00] that's really what we, that's what we see. 

[00:25:03] George: I think people ought to realize too that the right for same-sex couples to marry was not only about whether they should have the opportunity to have their marriages.

Or their, unions to be legally protect. There were a host of accompanying issues that, that solved for the gay community for example having to do with making medical decisions for your partner. The opportunity even to be in a hospital room with your partner. The. You were married, you would not be able to do that.

I I, actually even ha, belonged to a country club that won't that won't let couples Enjoy the full [00:26:00] benefits of the club unless they are legally married. And that goes for straight as well as gay couples. But nonetheless, there are all sorts of accompanying issues about estates and about money and about decisions that, that of, care, that this decision of Obergefell were able to settle.

And it's uns. To think that we now are putting not only the question of their marriages back on the table, but also all the attendant issues that go with it that are personal and things that I think most people would want to see protected 

[00:26:45] Skye: and the basic dignity. Of people, which is what I keep going back to in all of these civil rights battles.

At the end of the day, what we're talking about is the equality of people, the basic dignity of [00:27:00] people, and the right that people have to live in a society that recognizes that, and that does not draw distinctions because of the color of your skin, because of who you love, because of your sexual orientation, because of your gender identity, because of your biological.

All of these things. It is it really comes down to these fundamental issues which are central to modern democracy. They're central to what it means to live in a free society. And I think that it's really fundamentally both from a maybe from a personal perspective too, but certainly from the perspective of.

Our country. This is really about the, full existence of people and recognizing their full existence. And so it's incredibly unsettling to know that there are powerful movements that will seek to eradicate that hard fought progress. And that want to be pushing us backwards when really there's a lot of other [00:28:00] work that needs to be done to make sure that we're recognizing and valuing all.

[00:28:05] George: Skye. There's a, conversation among people of sincere religious belief that says something like this, that they don't mind the idea of same sex couples having a civil union, a legally protected relationship that is marriage like. But that the language of marriage is religious language. It belongs in the category of the sacred.

And I, wonder I think there was a time when we were talking about those distinctions more legally and that the Obergefell decision in franchise, more the language of marriage. And that's, that was troubling to people of religious faith who believe marriage is really a sacred, not a secular matter.

[00:29:00] Is there an argument still to be made about this or is, has that ship sailed? 

[00:29:05] Skye: I think that, you know what any particular religious tradition or community tradition calls, marriage sees, as a union, sees as marriage as sacred or whatever number of words people might attribute to it, depending on your religious tradition is something that is deeply personal.

It is something that people, humanity for many for ages has defined and integrated. Spiritual lives. And that's again we don't have a country where we are forcing particular religious institutions to do certain things. We have a country that says that if you want to benefit from if you want to benefit from various public goods, that there are some basic.

That there are some basic rules that you have to follow. And so I don't to [00:30:00] me, I think that recognizing equal marriage and equal union, equal marriage as the Supreme Court did, as a fundamental right for people should not impact the way that individual people view their own ideas around marriage.

But it should impact the way that we as a society move forward together. State should not recognize a privilege for some and not make it available to all. And I think that is really I think that's really fundamental in what we saw in the what our constitution protects, what remains the law of the land, even if there are people that, wanna see it go away.

And what we need to continue to, seek to affirm as people. 

[00:30:46] George: For my many years as a, minister, I have acted as an agent of the. In performing weddings. And as a Baptist, I will tell you that I've had often a [00:31:00] little trouble in my conscience about that. Because it's a gray area for people who are strict separation of church and state folk.

Like I, I am. And I think that this is an example after Obergefell, what we saw. Ministers reassessing their role of acting as an agent of the state and wondering whether if doing. If refusing to do same sex weddings was in some way then going to endanger their role in performing heterosexual marriages as well, or the church would be held accountable by the state.

And of course that has not happened, but there was a lot of concern about that. I, guess one of my questions about this is, does this issue. Throw us back to revisiting what the [00:32:00] role of religious ministers is in weddings. How do you feel about this area of of, of. law where ministers are functioning as agents of the state in performing weddings.

[00:32:15] Skye: I think that these are these are really quite complex legal issues on the particular VPs around. The various roles of ministers ministerial exceptions, all of these things. I think that what I can say in terms of how we began the conversation around the Supreme Court and the equal rights of people, like from a legal perspective, what we look at is wanting to make sure that our courts are recognizing and that our law is recognizing all people as equal and what that attends to, and making sure that there aren't special privileges that are available to some that aren't available to all. I would be really interested in how you are on the front, have been on the front lines of this [00:33:00] and a lot of the, a lot of the hate to say the Skye has fallen, but I a lot of the stuff that people were concerned about ended up being something that worked, out, and really.

There is this legal role of marriage in society, and that is what, when we look at the when we look at the rights available that's really what's concerned about. And then there's a spiritual role of how people define what unions are. Who can unite how they unite and those types of things.

And that's really your purview as the minister. But I think but I think the, main thing is that we are ensuring that there are not. Special benefits that are only available to certain people because they happen to be born with a particular sexual orientation or gender identity and that are off limits to others.

And I think that that it was a real step forward when we saw the Supreme Court recognized what many beliefs has always been, should always be the law that has recognized. And then we're gonna this very concerning [00:34:00] time where there's a definite movement to push that back. 

[00:34:03] George: I have a friend who in our church was trying to make this decision six years ago who he opposed our process that led to this decision and not necessarily the outcome, but he would say to me that this was a matter that needed a, greater consensus before the church were to have made a decision that it was divisive because it was.

A broad enough consensus. Now, it was a broad enough consensus for the vote to succeed on the basis of our own internal rules. He said to me if, Lincoln had known how many lives would be lost in the Civil War and that people's minds would've eventually changed and the union could have been preserved, et cetera [00:35:00] would he have gone to war?

And this seems to me to be part of the question about marriage equality, LGBTQ inclusion, is that there is, there has been a sea change of public opinion that many have recognized, and I think Obergefell recognized as well that people have changed their mind on this faster. Any real public matter a more personal matter like this than anything I can remember.

It, really has been lightning fast in some ways. And, then we had a legal decision that enfranchised that change before there was a sense in the broader population that we were ready. I, I. It, seems like there has to come some point at which the law reflects what the law should be, regardless of whether people [00:36:00] have gotten there, whether on race or on women's issues, or on LGBTQ inclusion.

Because if, we waited for everyone to catch up we would never, we would continue to discriminate. 

[00:36:17] Skye: Well, I, yes, and I think there is a, there's several writers and philosophers that, that write about this. But if, we view democracy and view society as a progression and as a more. As a more perfect, if we are honest about where we started and we did not start with a true democracy.

And because we had so many people that were dehumanized and disenfranchised, and if we are honest about that and if we are honest that this is a project to make a more perfect. Union then there will always be detractors. There will always be people that benefited from their particular privilege that may not, that may have a zero sum view, that [00:37:00] may not, that may believe that the rightful gains of some that have continued to be marginalized come at their expense, which I think is a very wrong view and is a narrow view.

And it is not and, the law and our country has to re. What is right and what is deeply bound into the values of democracy and of equality. And that does not mean that everyone has to agree with it all the time, but it does in a personal way. But it does mean that there are some common rules for how we operate, and those mean that people are created equal.

And so I I think that there's always, in all of these movements, we've seen it we've seen it in movements in all of these movements, there's always a call for, well you're just this is just. There's not an urgency. You This is not an urgent matter. We, know Martin Luther King had some very eloquent words to say about the white moderate in the South that thought that in in theory supported these things but [00:38:00] thought it was moving too fast.

And I think that what I come back to, it's when you were talking about people's existence, when you are talking about the actual. Treatment of people are, we going to treat people as if, as if everyone is equal? Are we depriving some of their dignity in order to privilege others? When you were talking about those fundamental matters, I think that there is a place where the law it's very clear what it should be.

And of course we know that. Many people find that up for grabs in the courts, as we've seen with Dobbs and other things. But I think that I think that's there's always going to be detractors and, people that say that we should not move fast. But that for the status quo for many people is something that's untenable because it, it denies their very existence.

And I think that's where the push forward has to. 

[00:38:48] George: Well, Skye, thank you so much again for being with us on Good God. I think about the progression of these three conversations. First talking about democracy and then two [00:39:00] issues about democracy that come under it because I think the overall rubric that you continue to argue for is that democracy is about the, damos that is the people, and that it's. Protecting the equal rights of all human beings in our society. And when you apply that logic to particular issues, then you'll end up with a public square where people may disagree, but they still. We still are promoting and protecting the rights equally of every citizen. So thank you for the work that you're doing.

It has far reaching implications and it's wonderful to talk with you and to hear your perspectives on. Good God, we're grateful for you. 

[00:39:52] Skye: Thanks for having me. 

[00:39:54] George: Thank you for joining us again for this edition of Good God, our final conversation with Skye [00:40:00] Perryman, who has given us a lot to think about looking at issues related. To reproductive rights and LGBTQ inclusion in our society, legal protections for each. And from her perspective, these should all fall under the general purview of equality for every citizen of the United States, and a recognition that while that has been a stated matter, it has not been a settled matter.

Our practice in this country from the very beginning that we had to grow into it. And we are still growing into it to not expand rights, but actually to acknowledge rights that have been limited. And so for those who use the language of being progressives, it's not necessarily that we are adding right. [00:41:00] to the Constitution and, but we are actually recognizing rights that have already been there. And for those who are traditionalists, there have been more concerns about whether they would be forced to accept a change in their personal convictions or in their congregational life. Their. Communities based upon these changes in recognition of equal rights under the law.

And so I hope you've got a sense of the balance of that about where we stand and about how to bring your faith into the public square in a more generous way. And recognize that all of your rights aren't removed simply because you might disagree with a current law. If you are interested in learning more about these matters, you can find more information always on our website at faithcommons.org.

Thanks again for joining us for this edition of Good God.