• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Ryan Anderson to Kirsten Powers: Jim Crow? Government Shouldn’t Intimidate Christians

    David McNew/Getty Images

    David McNew/Getty Images

    Liberal-leaning commentator Kirsten Powers strays from a common understanding of faith in asserting that Christians who support protections for religious views on marriage “are essentially arguing for homosexual Jim Crow laws,” Heritage Foundation scholar Ryan T. Anderson writes in a National Review Online column.

    Powers makes the comparison in her column in today’s USA Today, attacking a Kansas measure that proponents say would prevent government from forcing citizens to honor same-sex marriage when it’s against their religion. In a rebuttal, Anderson writes at NRO that  “the government shouldn’t enshrine Powers’s theology into law.”  Legislation such as the Kansas bill, he explains, actually aims to prevent the kind of coercion that occurred under the South’s old Jim Crow regime by protecting freedom of association, freedom of contract and freedom of religion.

    Powers appears to dismiss the religious convictions of florists, bakers, photographers and other business owners who don’t choose to join in celebrations of same-sex unions. “Christianity doesn’t prohibit serving a gay couple getting married,” writes the Fox News Channel regular. “Christians serve unrepentant murderers through prison ministry. So why can’t they provide a service for a same-sex marriage?”

    Anderson, who as Heritage’s William E. Simon Fellow has written extensively about the marriage debate, counters that Powers misses the point:

    “But many of these professionals understand their professions differently – being a wedding photographer is not simply being ‘a vendor,’ but utilizing God-given talents to tell the story of a particular couple and their relationship. Likewise, many of these professionals understand their obligation to witness to the truth differently –celebrating a same-sex relationship as a marriage affirms that relationship. It is understandable why some religious believers would not want the government coercing them into doing that. The government shouldn’t enshrine Powers’s theology into law and then coerce those who have a different understanding of what their faith requires.”

    >>> Check Out: State Marriage Laws Are Constitutional. Judges Should Respect Them.

    This story was produced by The Foundry’s news team. Nothing here should be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation.

    Posted in Culture, Front Page [slideshow_deploy]

    Comments are closed.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.