David Shribman, executive editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, won a Pulitzer Prize for coverage of U.S. politics.
For the past week lawmakers, scholars, business executives, gay-rights activists and religious conservatives have been parsing the language of the "religious freedom" measures in Indiana and Arkansas. But for all the heated rhetoric and high-toned language, the ultimate meaning of this controversy has escaped attention.
For it should be clear that the real implications of this contretemps – which has preoccupied afternoon talk radio, dominated early-evening newscasts and spilled over into late-night comedy shows – go far beyond the legalisms of the legislation enacted in Indiana and rejected Wednesday by the governor of Arkansas.
The principals in this episode may be debating the small print of these Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, which have been passed in about 40 per cent of America's states, but the larger significance is clear: Even the most conservative politicians in the most conservative states no longer dare to oppose gay rights.
Take the principal figure in this dispute, Republican Governor Mike Pence of Indiana, who signed his state's legislation last month and is contemplating a presidential campaign in a party that is veering rightward. His conservative bona fides are impeccable. Before becoming governor he was chair of the Republican Conference, the central governing body of the House GOP and its intellectual forum. In his last year in the U.S. House of Representatives (2012), he earned a 100 per cent rating from the American Conservative Union. (Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada scored a 0 rating.)
And this week, Mr. Pence went on the airwaves and even onto the op-ed page of the devoutly conservative Wall Street Journal to decry discrimination against gays.
"The suggestion that we had in some ways created a license to discriminate," Mr. Pence said in a news conference Tuesday, "is deeply offensive to me, deeply offensive to millions of Hoosiers, and we're going to fix it."
The Indianapolis Star, the state's biggest newspaper, reacted to the furor with a huge front-page editorial, white ink against a black background in upper-case letters: "FIX THIS NOW." Mr. Pence said he hoped for the "fix" to be finalized by week's end, but already the state was engulfed in controversy. Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic presidential contender, decried the legislation while others, including high-tech executives, piled on.
The NCAA, which chose Indianapolis as host city of this weekend's Final Four men's college basketball tournament, and the National Basketball Association, whose Pacers play in Indianapolis, came out against the measure, along with NASCAR, whose fans regularly attend races at the famed Motor Speedway. The auto-racing group issued a statement saying the organization was "committed to diversity and inclusion within our sport and therefore will continue to welcome all competitors and fans at our events in the state of Indiana and anywhere else we race." That prompted Conan O'Brien, the television comedian to bellow: "Did you hear that, Indiana? You're not progressive enough for NASCAR."
At the heart of this controversy is the collision between two American values –religious freedom and individual rights – that often go together. The intent of these laws in states across the country, and in broadly similar federal legislation signed by former president Bill Clinton, is to give businesses the room to conduct their affairs in ways consistent with their operators' faiths. Supporters of these measures, such as likely Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, argue, like he did in a radio interview Monday night, that "I just think once the facts are established, people aren't going to see this as discriminatory at all."
The ultimate meaning of these measures, whether adjusted in Indiana, where it is now law, or in Arkansas, where Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson Wednesday asked for amendments before he will sign it, will be left to the courts, which thus far have not provided cover for businesses to discriminate against gays. But the ultimate meaning of this controversy is clear. In a country where three-quarters of the states have passed same-sex marriage laws, many with no controversy to speak of, there is less and less tolerance for political figures or the courts to oppose gay rights.
That reflects dramatic shifts in public opinion in the United States. Americans support gay marriage by a margin of nearly two to one, according to The Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll taken less than a month ago. There is new agitation within the GOP to keep the gay-marriage issue out of the Republican platform in next year's election.
"When the governor signed this bill a week or so ago, I thought, 'Well, that's Indiana, and no one will be surprised or care all that much,'" said Robert Saltzman, an Indiana native who is former associate dean of the University of Southern California Law School and is a prominent gay activist. "But the extraordinarily strong reaction from across the spectrum, particularly from mainstream and even conservative business leaders, demonstrates that times have changed."
David Shribman