Austein 1

Alexander Austein
REL-3170
4/22/16
Jeffrey Gottlieb

Same-Sex Complementarity and States Banning of Anti-Discrimination Laws

Despite the Supreme Courts legalization of same-sex marriage on June 26, 2015,
recent bills passed by the governors of both Mississippi and North Carolina and
supported by the Republican majority in the Senate, have sought to repeal antidiscrimination laws put in place to protect the rights of gay, lesbian, and transgender
peoples. Under the recently enacted state policies, businesses gain the ability to deny
service on the basis of their customers personal practices violating their religious beliefs.
In effect, this renders members of the LGBT community in those states as oppressed,
denied the basic rights allotted to heterosexuals or those satisfied with their gender
identity at birth. The article Same-Sex Complementarity, published in the Christian
Century by Eugene Rogers seeks to demystify the Biblical language frequently quoted in
debates about homosexual marriage and present a context-derived assessment of the
passages in a way that they could still be held as valuable today. He reaches an
appropriately modern conclusion, that gendered language in the marriage rite should be
understood to include same-sex couples (Rogers 5), and thus it can be deduced that
Rogers would adamantly oppose the adopted policies of the Mississippi and North
Carolina state governments as heinous actions that are distinctly un-Christian and

Austein 2
exclusively motivated by political pressures. Given these findings, I would similarly
argue that the governors in these two states are operating under the influence of outside
forces and municipal interests rather than being concerned about the rights and desires of
their people. From my own viewpoint, America in 2016 is increasingly diverse and
exponentially vocal: it is now a country massively energized by the social media and
technology of the current Internet era poised for social, if not political revolution via the
youth finding their voice. And yet, the terms expressed in the ban on anti-discrimination
bills effectually silences the LGBT community and relegates them to second class
citizens without even a pertinent scripture quote or referendum that could be cited as a
precedent for this behavior.
To expound on the examination of the bills passed by the state legislature of North
Carolina, I turn to the New York Times: The state bill, [] specifically bars people in
North Carolina from using bathrooms that do not match their birth gender, and goes
further to prohibit municipalities from creating their own antidiscrimination policies.
Instead, it creates a statewide antidiscrimination policy one that does not mention gay
and transgender people. (Philipps 2). These strident regulations deny protections from
abuse and discrimination for gay and transgender people, and prohibits them the
freedoms blatantly available to others. In Mississippi, the tidings are no less grim, with a
measure signed by Gov. Phil Bryant of Mississippi [that] allows churches, religious
charities and privately held businesses to decline services to people if doing so would
violate their religious beliefs on marriage and gender (Katz/Eckholm 1), positing the
LGBT community again as susceptible to unfair treatment. The issues here are systemic
and sweeping, going against the grain of decades of progress towards achieving equality

Austein 3
in terms of social liberties for all people regardless of gender or sexuality. By passing
these bills, the state governments of Mississippi and North Carolina imply the supremacy
of suppositional religious rights over the freedoms painstakingly earned against a
longstanding history of homophobia and conservative values.
The situation has generated fervor in the media, particularly from liberal leaning
states and companies like Paypal, Facebook, Apple, and Bank of America, which is
ironically based out of Charlotte, North Carolina. It is a widely controversial issue in
politics currently, finding a shocking amount of support from the Republican majority in
the Senate, and near total opposition from Democrats nationwide. It is backed
enthusiastically by presidential candidate Ted Cruz, indicated perhaps most clearly in
how Gov. Pat McCrory of North Carolina and Mr. Bryant join a list of Republican
governors who are being squeezed between the business groups that have formed the core
of their support and conservative state lawmakers pushing back against recent gains made
by advocates of gay rights and same-sex marriage (Katz/Eckholm 2). Despite these
transgressions, little concern seems to be being paid to the divisions and split forming not
just between the states that are adopting the ban on anti-discrimination laws and those
that fiercely oppose that decision, but also within states like North Carolina and
Mississippi themselves. Weve got this divide, said Ferrel Guillory, the director of the
Program on Public Life at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The divide
between the cultural conservatism of older suburbs and older rural areas, and these new,
thriving, modern economy, diverse cities. (Robertson/Fausset 2).
Given the manner in which Rogers broaches the topic of same-sex marriage from
a Christian perspective, using the rhetoric of the Bible and opinions from various sides of

Austein 4
his particular debate, it is clear he would broach the aforementioned issues in North
Carolina and Mississippi much in the same way. For instance, his most frequently used
strategy in his article is the breakdown of language directly from the Bible, from which
he attempts to apply it to a modern day context. His conclusions echo resoundingly for
same-sex marriage, because he identifies the root ambiguity and lack of consistently
gendered language found in the text itself. And yet, it is worth mentioning that it is this
same text that is frequently misquoted and misinterpreted such as to reinforce hateful or
discriminatory beliefs, rather than positions that are legitimately upheld or corroborated
by religious text. I believe, given Eugene Rogers evaluation into matters, positing
thoughtful, unbiased examination above all, he would decisively argue that the ban on
anti-discrimination laws found in the two Southern states described above are not poising
themselves as reverent Christians, but businesses and institutions inundated by prejudice.
Although he notes that antigay arguments had disappeared (Rogers 1), the recent state
laws passed suggest only the contrary via lawmakers and religious leaders.
Which is to say that the state governments and religious institutions within the
states that have endorsed these measures lend evidence to the idea that politics and faith
are operating hand in hand. Symbolically bridging the barrier between church and state,
the ban on anti-discrimination laws and the provision that local communities are
prohibited from instituting their own policies regarding their people subtly implies a
corrupt relationship. Churches ran like businesses benefit from the support pledged by a
devout membership, just as conservative politicians can sow the seeds of an avid
following by appealing to a large but silent demographic coalition. Its important to
realize that the understanding behind these laws recognize the Supreme Courts

Austein 5
legalization of gay marriage, but stand blatantly against it. This is clarified by the
intentionality of the state laws, aiming to bar and prevent gay and transgender people
from living as others do, despite the ramifications of the Courts decision that rendered
them as lawfully equal as anyone else. Per Rogers, Something about symbols resists
change, because they carry the social meanings by which members of societies think.
(Rogers 2). It is rendered in the course of history that ingrained stigma is harder to erode
and change than policy itself; reshaping the mindsets of those culturally imbued with
homophobia has in recent years felt as difficult as shifting the paradigm altogether.
Rogers verbiage posits the continued strife of the LGBT community as
disheartening, but expected. He doesnt take a bitter or malevolent stance towards that
oppose the union of marriage for same-sex couples, but opts instead to explain why
marriage for them too is equitable to how couples [] can image the faithfulness of
God. (Rogers 1). The inherent ambiguity of the gendered language of the Bible, as seen
in the sharing of male and female characteristics in Jesus (Male priests invited male
monks [] to crawl into the wound in his side, the better to enter his womb. (Rogers
3)), articulates in Rogers argument that modern interpretation of scripture must not hinge
on the specifics, but practical adaptation. To infer as the state governments of Mississippi
and North Carolina do that religious institutions should be allowed the right to uphold
intolerance towards homosexuals and transgender people underlines a sentiment devoid
of legitimate religious gravitas, but predicated on the threat of sustained support for
incumbent politicians. The state government becomes fundamentally akin to a militia,
susceptible to coercion and intimidation to adopt policies that enforce intolerance and

Austein 6
dehumanization in fear of losing their jobs, contrary to the countrys own significant tilt
towards liberalized social policies.
A Christological account of gender gives bodies more, not fewer, ways to
matter (Rogers 4). The appropriate response to the bans on anti-discrimination laws is to
utilize all the tools available to attack, if not to suspend forever their implementation.
Rogers would recommend evaluating the terms of the bills in the context of their utilized
language, with the understanding that their words are not the sole indicator of their
meanings. He would argue that a mutual progression could be earned through sympathy
and thoughtful analysis, from parties on both sides of the issues spectrum. The
implication of the bills and their surprisingly widespread support amongst the Republican
Party suggests that even with the large steps of progress made on a national level, the
urge to define historically challenged minority groups, as others remains strong. By this
assessment, I would argue that religious freedom in this instance is an effort by
politicians to provide a carte blanche opportunity for businesses and municipalities to
oppress those whom they dont like or agree with on a visceral level. The state
governments push for a proclaimed religious freedom is in actuality a refutation of
LGBT rights, and by consequence, a denial of human rights.
The strengths of Eugene Rogers argument are its conscious inclination towards
comprehending varying sides of debate from an unbiased perspective. This lends
credence to ideas that he may sharply disagree with, but that he decisively isnt offended
or put off by. In effect, his rhetoric bridges the gap between divisive schools of thought,
while simultaneously promoting more comprehensive understanding. As such, the
approach matters most because it resounds kindly and potently over the din of raucous

Austein 7
soundbyte-centric news media coverage; it turns into a hail of contrasting voices into real
people voicing thoughts they believe earnestly in.
In conclusion, the ban on anti-discrimination laws in North Carolina and
Mississippi abridges human rights and subjects gay and transgender people to a lesser
status. Via Eugene Rogers approach towards same-sex complementarity, I inferred the
tactics of civil, objective argumentation in formulating a solution. It is clear that to effect
change and to improve the lives of all people, regardless of sexuality or gender in a
significant way, tolerance must be accrued and widespread understanding must be
garnered. To deem a fraudulent conception of religious freedom as being greater than
earned social liberties is to deny a minority group representation in favor of political
bargaining.

Austein 8
Works Cited

Theorist:

Rogers, Eugene F., Jr. "Same-Sex Complementarity." The Christian

Century(2011): n. pag. Web.

Articles:

Katz, Jonathan M., and Erik Eckholm. "Anti-Gay Laws Bring Backlash in
Mississippi and North Carolina." The New York Times. The New York Times, 05

Apr. 2016. Web. 22 Apr. 2016.

Philipps, Dave. "North Carolina Bans Local Anti-Discrimination Policies." The

New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Mar. 2016. Web. 22 Apr. 2016.
Robertson, Campbell, and Richard Fausset. "Southern Cities Split With States on
Social Issues." The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Apr. 2016. Web. 22
Apr. 2016.