I think Kathryn and I have many more agreements than we have differences on this issue, though that might not be apparent based on the perspectives from which we approach this issue. I would like to devote this last essay to hope: hope that Kathryn and I, both relatively young women who know the law and may be on the forefront of shaping these conversations for years to come, could try to create an ongoing forum for understanding and working toward common goals.  Real respect is not based on complete affirmation of each others’ opinions or worldviews, for it is easy to give respect to those with whom you agree.  But rather, I am seeking a respect between people who will, most probably, not come to a common understanding of what is God’s best for Christian faithfulness and human sexuality.  

I would like to begin by noting that it is an altogether singular experience to be called upon to argue for one’s right to do what most of society takes for granted–to participate in society without having to think about whether you will face discrimination based on who you are. For my esteemed colleague in this conversation, this is an academic discussion. For those who are LGBT, the direction this country ultimately takes on this question will have far ranging consequences for their lives and ability to contribute as productive members of society. I ask that my readers keep that in mind going forward.

I want to begin by saying how thankful I am for the opportunity to engage in this dialogue with Kathryn on these very complex subjects.  I want to affirm her willingness to share her personal connections and stories that have shaped how she thinks about these challenging topics.  In light of her openness in her first post, I would also like to acknowledge some personal truths.  I am 29 years old, squarely within the millennial generation. There are many people in my life who identify as LGBT that I love, and I deeply care about their well-being and treatment. I identify, with every fiber of my being, with the Gospel: with the unconditional love of Christ, with the physical embodiment of grace, from which all love and redemption springs.  I also identify as a heterosexual female.  I recognize that, in some ways, I speak from a place of privilege.  Just as I have learned that it is a privilege that I am not daily confronted with racial challenges because I am white, I have also learned that I’m privileged because I am not daily and personally confronted with the challenges of sexual orientation because I am attracted to members of the opposite sex.  As I said in my opening post, race and sexual orientation (and/or gender identity) are not situated in the exact same historical context, yet I can acknowledge that there are limited, helpful comparisons that can be drawn.  These comparisons, however, are bounded in real ways that I will discuss further later in this response.

After the Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges, public discourse has shifted to addressing the discrimination often targeted toward LGBT individuals in areas such as employment, housing, and credit opportunity. Obergefell requires states to accept same-sex marriage but does not tell governments what they must require of private persons and organizations with respect to same-sex marriage.  One consequence:  a gay couple can get married but then both people get fired or they can’t find housing in those many states and localities without laws protecting the LGBT community from discrimination.  The federal government itself does not have any comprehensive SOGI protections. One consequence is a heightened push to create new laws, including at the federal level, that would make SOGI a new protected class.  But unless well written, such laws, while protecting LGBT people in their identity, will harm faith-based organizations that have a different religious paradigm regarding human sexuality and desire to live in conformity to it without denying the legal rights of others.