Guns and Gay Rights: The Inexorable Arc towards Freedom

In recent days, a skirmish has broken out between two types of religious conservatives on the American political right–those who favor individual protections of religious liberty and those who favor an effort to utilize the powers of the state to promote the “common good.”  Effectively, the latter camp believes that the future of social conservatism is one of “big government” where openly pro-religion policies should be effectuated on a large scale to infuse a culture of religiosity back into the body politic (where it has mostly waned for several generations).  In contrast, those focused on protections of individual religious liberty espouse a far more minimalist approach, seeking to carve out a sphere in which they can exercise religious belief without interference from the heavy hand of the state.

This debate has the potential to shape the post-Trump strategy of social conservatives.  In one scenario (let’s call it “Trump-inspired”), the religious right aggressively seeks to employ the powers of the state to create an American political regime more consistent with its view of godliness.  A minor example would be, say, the public promotion of Christmas as a distinctly religious holiday; a more significant one would be the widespread utilization of public funds (e.g., through vouchers) to fund children’s education at openly religious schools.  In the other, less ambitious scenario, the secular state’s infringement upon individual religious practice is sought to be blunted.  Examples here include waging court battles against state compulsion of a baker’s forced creation of a gay wedding cake (the Masterpiece Cakeshop lawsuit) or resisting various governmental entities’ efforts to outlaw or undermine religious adoption agencies when they refuse to facilitate adoptions to same-sex parents (a position that is centuries old).

While the big ticket, Trump-inspired attack has an emotional allure–particularly to religious folks who feel put upon by society’s growing secularization–this European-style conservatism (prevalent in the “Old World” where religious and state authority–such as the Church of England–were often conflated) is almost certain to fail in the United States.*  A failure ascribable to the “guns and gay rights” paradox unique to the American experiment.

Guns and gay rights, you say?  Yes, over the past two generations, the culture war between the socially conservative right and the progressive left has been waged on numerous fronts.  The centerpiece (and arguably the cause) of that battle is abortion.  While the pro-life movement has made minor gains, this fight has long been a public opinion stalemate.  Immigration?  Mostly a stalemate.  Climate change?  Much to the chagrin of the left, yet another stalemate.  Guns?  A solid win for the right.  Gay rights?  A rout for the left.

To state the obvious, it is quite the paradox to see the two biggest “wins” in the post-Roe culture wars going in different directions, particularly because this result is unique to the United States.  Across Westerndom, gay rights have universally gained.  From the decriminalization of homosexual conduct (a relatively new development in human history) to general social acceptance of being “out” to the legalization of once unthinkable gay marriage, support for gay rights has gone from being a fringe issue to one with a clear majority support.  During this exact time frame, many of the same Western countries have moved similarly left on guns, restricting and even banning the general public’s access to firearms.  Of course, the United States has been a nearly lone (and aggressive) dissenter, with the past few decades having seen widespread legislation enabling greater individual access to firearms, a previously-enacted ban on certain “assault weapons” expiring without much fuss, concealed and even open carry laws put into effect ubiquitously, and a plethora of judicial decisions upholding and expanding one’s individual right to bear arms to secure his/her own defense.  The value of gun rights to a majority of Americans (albeit not the mainstream media) can be encapsulated in the declination of Democrats to pass anti-gun legislation while in full control of government during 2009/10 and the later failure to bar those on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms.

This paradox of gun rights and gay rights advancing in the same country at the same time is both remarkable and anomalous.  It is also exceptionally American, and arguably unachievable elsewhere.

So why the United States?  The answer is simple.  The principles of liberty (the fancy word for freedom) resound in this county in a manner they simply do not elsewhere.  The United States was largely created to maintain the liberty of its subjects (rather than their submission to a British king).  Its aspirational document – the Declaration of Independence – speaks of liberty as a “sacred truth” and an “inalienable right.”  The most important document for its citizenry is the Bill of Rights, which protects a bevy of individual liberties about which governmental intrusion is either outlawed or significantly restricted.  While the average American may not conceptualize the profound importance of liberty ensconced in his form of governance, he is aware of the integral nature of freedom in his culture (a reality present in everything from America’s commitment to free markets to its reverence for the “open range” Western frontier to its, per Western standards, relatively high crime rate).  In a liberty-obsessed country, gun rights reflect freedom, and gay rights represent freedom.  While their context is not identical, both sets of rights offer the bearer a greater degree of self-determination and/or self-expression, effectively a greater degree of liberty.

Circling back to the bubbling debate among social conservatives as to the appropriate political strategy for the country’s religiously committed, only one of these thrusts is consistent with the American tradition of and commitment to liberty.  Efforts to co-opt the state as a vehicle for religious principle are certain to result in a fierce blowback and colossal failure, both electorally and culturally.  In sharp contrast, efforts to protect the religious from the heavy hand of the state generate sympathy for religious belief and offer gateways for a fair hearing on policies supported by social conservatives (such as a pro-family agenda grounded in but not specific to religious belief).  As a collective, Americans have a keen sense of potential infringements on their liberty and generally resist the same; they likewise possess a soft spot for those whose freedoms are trampled upon by government.  A well-formulated strategy designed to effectuate socially conservative changes understands and uses American cultural commitments to its benefit, not its detriment.

*While this piece will not endeavor to provide historical context into the difficulties of European style religious conservatism in the US, it is notable that many founding groups in the United States (e.g., Puritans, Quakers) were distinct religious minorities that fled persecution in their native lands and were understandably wary of “big state” religion.