Dear Ms. Davis,
What is religious freedom, anyway? Should a Muslim be able to exercise their religion freely in the United States the same as a Roman Catholic? Or a Buddhist? Or a Sikh? Or even an Atheist?
Well, every precedent says yes, they all have the same right to freely practice their religion as one another, provided they're not causing anyone any physical harm or inciting violence through their practice of religion.
But how, exactly, does this work, anyway? If one only looks at their own personal freedoms, then it's clear: you get to grant or deny anyone anything you want, using your beliefs as a hammer to use on anyone you judge to not fit within that belief system.
But one's own personal freedoms aren't the only ones that matter. You're not the center of the universe. No one is. We live in a society of many people, and each and every one of these people believes something different from the other.
So how do we enable everyone to share the same free practice of religion?
The answer is simple: Your rights end where my nose begins. And vice versa. A Jewish OB/GYN can't mandate that all boys he delivers are circumcised, a Jehovah's Witness doctor can't withhold a life saving blood transfusion from a dying patient, and an Apostolic Christian county clerk can't deny two consenting adults the right to share in a system of pooling monetary resources, complete with state and federal tax benefits in order to promote household stability. That system, by the way, is what this country calls Marriage—it's nothing more than that. The relationship between the couple and God is not the same thing as the relationship between the couple and the state. And, according to the first amendment, the government isn't allowed to establish a religion, so the state's definition of marriage therefore cannot have anything whatsoever to do with the Bible's definition of marriage.
This is the bottom line:
Your free practice of religion (or absence thereof) should not be able to legally trump my free practice of religion (or absence thereof)—and if we allow that balance to be upset, if we say one person's religious freedom matters more than another person's religious freedom, then no one has free practice of religion. You have the freedom to practice your religion, but not to impose your religious beliefs on others--because imposing your religion on others infringes their respective free practice of religion. And by denying your constituents marriage licenses, you are in fact imposing your religion on others.
I sincerely hope you see the light of reason.
Best,
Andrew Meilstrup
