WENDELL L. GRIFFEN
Special to the Democrat-Gazette
The cover story in the June 1 Perspective section of the Democrat-Gazette was penned by state Senator Jason Rapert. It appeared beneath a banner headline reading "We the people" with a subhead that read "Who decides what's best for Arkansas?" In his essay, Mr. Rapert made several claims that deserve comment because they are inaccurate, false, and glaring evidence of his bigotry.
Although he professed to base his objection to recent rulings by my colleague Judge Chris Piazza that declared unconstitutional Arkansas laws which limit marriage licenses to persons who are heterosexual on religious grounds, Mr. Rapert has no superior claim to represent the Creator, whether purporting to speak as a Christian or otherwise. However, I do not think he got such a prominent platform on that basis.
Rather, Rapert's major premise (and the one that warrants a rejoinder) is the false view that the will of a majority defines what is just. The great evil (and I use that word deliberately) of Rapert's mindset is one that has been long aligned with that of the publisher and editorial leadership of the Democrat-Gazette. To sum up that view, the collective judgment of 750,000 voters makes something right. This is the error
to be confronted, challenged, and discredited, for that is the upshot of Rapert's essay.
Rapert's appeal to sectarianism is both disingenuous and pernicious. Like any demagogue, he knows how to appeal to base fears, superstition, and falsehoods about homosexuality. He appeared in the company of like-minded black Christian clergy and so created a visual image intended to make his major premise acceptable across racial lines. Of course, a false premise is false no matter who accepts it, but that's of no concern to Rapert or the editorial staff of the Democrat-Gazette.
However, I have no reason or desire to engage Rapert's essay on sectarian grounds. We should not treat his essay as anything more than it is, a wrong-headed attempt to dignify and justify oppressive secular laws about a civil right--the right to obtain a marriage license.
On that issue, Judge Piazza's rulings are both clear and indisputable. The issue of marriage equality involves fundamental justice, not religious orthodoxy, dogma, doctrine, or practice. It is common knowledge to everyone, including Mr. Rapert, that no religious community issues marriage licenses. There is no sectarian or faith-based requirement which people must satisfy to obtain a marriage license. No religious official or community is obligated to solemnize any marriage (whether between same sex or different sex couples), nor can the government compel such a thing.
If Rapert does not know this, his ignorance is inexcusable. If he knows it, his claims are nothing more than a crass attempt to use religion as an excuse for bigotry and discrimination based on sexual orientation. In some quarters, including the words of Jesus, that constitutes hypocrisy (hopefully Mr. Rapert's Bible includes Matthew 23:23-24).
Rapert's claim that Judge Piazza's rulings striking down discriminatory laws which limit marriage licenses to people who are heterosexual violates religious freedom is not only inaccurate. It is manifestly false. He has the freedom to be wrong-headed and wrong-hearted. That freedom doesn't exempt him from criticism, charges of demagoguery, and designation as a politician who, like those who opposed civil rights laws in the past, are denounced as bigots. I am not willing to excuse such bigotry and hypocrisy, but flatly condemn it no matter who spouts it or who stands alongside them.
Racial segregation in public education was lawful by popular vote in Arkansas, across the South, and practiced elsewhere with the force of law. The U.S. Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional 60 years ago last month in Brown v. Board of Education. Racial gerrymandering of electoral districts was lawful by popular vote. The U.S. Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional almost a half century ago in Gomillion v. Lightfoot and Baker v. Carr. Judge Piazza's recent rulings are correctly understood in the light of these and similar decisions.
Bigotry and discrimination in providing public benefits and services, when enforced by civil law, is unjust. It is the work of judges to say so.
A marriage license is a public record issued by a public entity without any religious or faith-based conditions whatsoever. Mr. Rapert and any other person is free to refuse to solemnize same-sex marriages in his or their religious practices. But since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Marbury v. Madison, our nation has recognized the power of judges, not preachers or religious communities, to engage in judicial review of actions by the executive and legislative branches. Mr. Rapert's reference to President Jefferson disingenuously disregarded that important history.
And the reason judges have longer terms of elective office and are not subject to recall votes is because judicial independence and judicial review are cherished features of U.S. democracy. By protesting Judge Piazza's rulings based on a claim that popular will is the ultimate standard for defining fundamental liberties, Rapert exposed his similarity to the bigots and hypocrites who espoused racial segregation and other injustices.
Frankly, I am not interested in debating Mr. Rapert or anyone else about what they choose to believe about the divine will. I suspect my views are no more impressive to Rapert and his followers on issues of faith as his are to me. I hold a drastically different understanding about the love of God and the gospel of Jesus from what Mr. Rapert represents. That understanding, based on the commandment that one love a neighbor as oneself, impels me to view Mr. Rapert's objections to marriage equality on religious grounds as theologically unsound and scripturally incorrect, in addition to being historically inaccurate and legally discredited.
But this is not a religious liberty debate. Rapert's essay urges readers to view his position as just, which is probably why he began and ended it by citing Lincoln, Jefferson, and Washington. That is a debate worth having because Rapert's essay is, at the core, a blatant condemnation of judicial review and independence and a demand for tyranny by popular vote.
Like the same-sex couples who have been discriminated against in obtaining marriage licenses, I have lived under that kind of tyranny. I have studied it. And I will forever denounce and oppose that tyranny with all my strength.
Wendell L. Griffen. a Pulaski County circuit judge and CEO of Griffen Strategic Consulting PLLC, is pastor of New Millennium Church in Little Rock.
Editorial on 06/08/2014