From Family Values to Religious Freedom: Conservative Discourse and the Politics of Gay Rights

On the issue of gay rights, today’s social conservatives are more likely to describe their opposition as a matter of religious freedom or personal conscience as opposed to a belief that gays and lesbians represent an existential threat to the traditional family. But how new is this contemporary argument, and how different is it from the family values politics of the previous era? This article develops what Victoria Hattam and Joseph Lowndes call “associative chains” from two important moments in anti-gay politics: Anita Bryant’s Save Our Children campaign and Kim Davis’s decision to not issue gay marriage licenses in Rowan County, KY. On one level, these moments reveal competing roles of the state in the lives of its citizens. Family values politics authorized an interventionist state for the protection of children, while religious freedom defenders promote a zone of personal conscience impervious to the state. On another level, however, these moments reveal the mutability of social conservative opposition to gay rights. Calls for protecting religious freedom preserve a heterosexism derived from antecedent family values politics. The novelty of religious freedom as a defense for homophobia obscures a persistent social conservative commitment to using the state to enshrine the heteronuclear family.