PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE

178 Peaceful Coexistence Report
Equality and autonomy rights grounded in sexual orientation and equality and liberty rights
grounded in religious identity parallel each other in important respects. For example, for many
devoutly religious persons, religion is a core aspect of their identity. It is a fixed part of who
they are. Similarly, sexual orientation is a fixed part and core aspect of a gay or lesbian person’s
identity. Just as it is unrealistic, unfair, and useless to insist as a matter of social policy that gays
and lesbians should just stop being gay, it is equally unacceptable to insist that devoutly religious
persons should just stop obeying the dictates of their faith.
Also, religion and sexual orientation have a merged identity and conduct dimension to them. It
makes no sense to tell devout Catholics that they are protected as to their religious identity, but
they are prohibited from practicing Catholicism. It is similarly senseless to protect the identity of
gays and lesbians, while prohibiting their right to sexual intimacy. Neither gays nor lesbians nor
devoutly religious individuals can reasonably be required to change who they are - or to separate
their conduct from their identity. Religion is no more an easily discarded so-called lifestyle than
is an orientation toward sexual intimacy and association.
Moreover, both religious belief and affiliation and same-sex marital relationships are the source
of duties and responsibilities. They are both intended to express the seriousness of mutual
commitments. Religious people want to have the liberty to fulfill the responsibilities that arise
out of their relationship with G-d. Same-sex couples want to marry in order to express their
commitment to the person with whom they want to share their lives - and to fulfill the
responsibilities that arise out of this relationship.
Perhaps most importantly, the essence of religious liberty is the right to be different and to be
wrong in the eyes of others. Members of many faiths believe that adherents of other religions or
non-believers are deeply and seriously in error in their beliefs. A commitment to religious
liberty tempers the conflict among religions by allowing the adherents of different faiths to
follow their own path -- even if other religions believe it is the wrong road and takes them away
from G-d.
A similar analysis applies to the conflict between some religious adherents and same-sex marital
couples. Protecting the liberty interests of both groups requires the mutual recognition of the
right to be wrong in the other group’s eyes.
Ultimately, respect for personal autonomy rights has to be a two way street. It cannot be
restricted solely to those who exercise their liberty and autonomy in approved ways. There is no
gold standard that defines the scope of fundamental rights by only protecting what the majority
deems to be the best religions or the best kinds of sexual intimacy. If we believe that we should
limit the state’s authority to interfere with core autonomy interests, then those limitations should
apply equally when we are in the majority and can use state power to impose our beliefs on
others, and when we are a minority and fear having the majority’s beliefs imposed on us. A