Actually, the controversy over religious freedom laws is creating a valuable national conversation

The religious right has lost the cultural war on marriage equality.    So they lobbied hard and won a token compensation from some conservative states with the "religious freedom restoration" laws.   In essence, these laws are gifts to the disappointed religious right.

The perverse beauty of it was that they would sell these laws under the guise of protecting the freedom to practice religious beliefs, and they would be written in such a way that didn't mention anti-gay discrimination -- but they would allow it .  .  .  .

.  .  .  and hope the other side wouldn't notice.

It became law in Indiana last week.  The problem was that not only gay rights groups did notice, but the business community did too, as well as sports organizations, rock concerts, and convention planners.   The backlash has been so huge that Gov. Pence has had to backtrack and call for a new bill that "clarifies" that it does not allow discrimination.

Arkansas passed an almost identical law this week -- and there's been such pressure that Gov. Hutchinson won't sign it in its present form.   Then there's Georgia's bill.   As of this writing, it has been tabled in committee.

What has happened here in Georgia perhaps provides the best proof yet of the real purpose behind these laws.   Thanks to my favorite Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Jay Bookman, here's how this went down.

State Senator Josh McKoon introduced SB 129, which is very similar to the Indiana and Arkansas bills -- as described in the second paragraph above.   It passed the GA Senate, then went to the House, where it was amended to add a crucial sentence:

"Courts have consistently held that government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating discrimination."

So now we had a Senate version and a House version that had to be reconciled.  Sen. McKoon says about his SB 129 that it "couldn't be further from the truth," to say that his bill offers license to discriminate.    

However, he also said this, when asked about the senate's added sentence:    It would "completely undercut the purpose of the bill."

Bookman concludes:

"Here in Georgia, the entire argument has come down to one sentence . . . .  It is not logically possible for McKoon to claim that his bill has nothing to do with discrimination, yet would be gutted by a sentence saying it has nothing to do with discrimination.  Yet that's where we are.  As long as that sentence remains in the bill, SB 129 is fine and should be passed easily.  If that sentence is removed, SB 129 would give individuals or businesses a religious-based right to discriminate against gay people, and once again Georgia takes a big step backward."

In the long run, this is an important, perhaps penultimate, chapter in the rapid acceleration of gay rights in this country, set to culminate in June with SCOTUS's decision.

The controversy over these laws, the HUGE backlash from left and right -- and the national conversation it has sparked -- is good.   When the truth is exposed, freedom and equality usually result.   We Americans may be biased, even bigoted;   but we don't like to be made to face the fact that we are.   So, when confronted with the truth, we often see the light.    

Not always, and not always all of us each time.   But cumulatively we are moving in the right direction -- and the pace is almost dizzying these days.

Ralph