When Law Calls Love “Purported "The Arc of Tennessee’s History and the Spiritual Battle for the Soul of Humanity

By Rev. Paula Josephine Sadler

Founder, Universal Rainbow Faith

There are moments in history when a legislature passes a bill and calls it “common sense.”

And there are moments when history whispers:

You have been here before.

The passage of HB1473 and SB1746 in Tennessee, legislation asserting that private citizens are not bound by the Fourteenth Amendment to recognize same-sex marriages and describing those unions as “purported,” is not merely procedural. It is not merely about religious liberty.

It is about the architecture of discrimination.

And I will say plainly what others are afraid to say:

“This is not only a sin — it is immoral and unethical, and it is a human tragedy and it is a moral failing by anyone who does not recognize love between two adults who want to enter into a sacred union.”— Rev. Paula Josephine Sadler

The Arc of Violence and Respectability

In 1940, Elbert Williams was lynched in Tennessee — the last recorded lynching in the state.

That is not ancient history.

Fourteen years later, in 1954, the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education, declaring segregation unconstitutional.

Within weeks, the first White Citizens’ Council was formed. Tennessee chapters followed.

These were not masked extremists.

They were businessmen. Lawyers. Legislators. Clergy.

They defended segregation using phrases like: "States’ rights.”“Tradition.”“Social order. ”God’s design.”

In Tennessee, State Senator Charles A. Stainback sponsored legislation aimed at resisting desegregation.

The White Citizens’ Councils lasted into the 1970s.

In 1985, former segregationist activists reorganized as the Council of Conservative Citizens. Its president, Gordon Baum, remained active until his death in 2015.

1954 → 1970s → 1985 → 2015.

This is not coincidence.

This is continuity.

Marriage Then

Before June 12, 1967:

Interracial couples could be arrested. Their marriages were invalid. Children were stigmatized. Families were torn apart.

The arguments defending anti-miscegenation laws were:

“It’s against God’s design. ”It harms society. ”It weakens family structure. ”States should decide. ”Tradition defines marriage.”

Sound familiar?

Then came Loving v. Virginia.

The Supreme Court declared:

“Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man.”

Society did not collapse.

It healed.

Marriage Now

Today, Tennessee lawmakers call same-sex marriages “purported.”

I have asked the question clearly:

“Prove and show that there is harm somehow by two men or two women loving each other or trans people simply existing or wanting to marry.”

There is no evidence of harm.

Marriage strengthens communities.

Commitment stabilizes households.

Recognition reduces stigma.

Exclusion breeds damage.

The Side-by-Side We Cannot Ignore

Anti-Miscegenation Era	Marriage Equality Era
“Unnatural marriage”	“Unnatural marriage”
“Against God’s design”	“Against God’s design”
“States’ rights”	“States’ rights”
Marriages invalid	Marriages “purported”
Constitutional protections resisted	Constitutional protections minimized

History is not subtle here.

The Spiritual Dimension

I believe this is not only political.

It is spiritual.

And I will not soften that language.

What we are witnessing is a form of spiritual warfare — not against flesh and blood — but against truth, dignity, and love.

There is an adversarial force in this world that convinces people they are righteous while they are causing harm.

It convinces them they are defending God while they are diminishing love.

It convinces them they are protecting morality while they are institutionalizing cruelty.

“The sins of the father are visited upon the children.”— Exodus 20:5; Numbers 14:18

This does not mean children are guilty.

It means systems echo.

When discrimination is written into law, it echoes.

When prejudice is normalized, it echoes.

When fear is sanctified, it echoes.

Christian Nationalism Is Not Christianity

Let me be very clear:

Christian nationalism is not Christianity.

White supremacy is not faith.

Religious coercion is not holiness.

When civil law begins privileging one religious worldview and labeling others as lesser, we are not advancing the Gospel.

We are advancing hierarchy.

When the state begins treating marriages differently based on who is loving whom, we are not defending morality.

We are redefining equality.

The Danger of Regression

We have walked this road before.

Segregation. Anti-miscegenation. States’ rights. “Common sense.” “Protect the family.”

Each era believed it was justified.

Each era believed it was righteous.

Each era was wrong.

I have said plainly:

“Marriage is not defined that it belongs only to one man and one woman. Marriage is for anyone who wants to enter into a sacred union and make a commitment to love and honor each other.”

Why are we going backward instead of progressing?

What kind of message does this send to the world?

That freedom is conditional.

That equality is negotiable.

That love requires approval.

The Broader Pattern

When governments begin controlling:

• Who may marry• Who may exist openly• Whose bodies are regulated• Whose faith is privileged• Whose speech is acceptable

History shows where that road leads.

It does not lead to revival.

It leads to restriction.

It does not lead to unity.

It leads to division.

It does not lead to strength.

It leads to decay.

The Moral Question Before Tennessee

Tennessee has a choice.

It can continue the arc toward justice.

Or it can repackage the rhetoric of the past and pretend it is new.

The White Citizens’ Councils dissolved.

The Council of Conservative Citizens faded.

But the ideology they carried did not evaporate.

It seeks new language.

New vehicles.

New legislation.

HB1473 and SB1746 do not stand alone.

They stand in a historical line.

And I refuse to pretend otherwise.

Final Word

Marriage is not weakened when it is expanded.

Freedom is not diminished when it is shared.

Love is not a threat.

Fear is.

And history will remember who stood for dignity — and who stood against it.

— Rev. Paula Josephine Sadler

Universal Rainbow Faith

When Righteousness Becomes Cruelty

Biblical Warnings, Modern Law, and the Battle for the Soul of a Nation

By Rev. Paula Josephine Sadler

Founder, Universal Rainbow Faith

There are moments in Scripture when people believed they were defending God —and were in fact resisting God’s heart.

That pattern is not ancient.

It is eternal.

And we are watching it unfold again.

Three Years

Jesus began His ministry around age thirty.

For roughly three years He healed, taught, uplifted the marginalized, and confronted religious hypocrisy.

Within three years, the religious authorities who believed they were guardians of truth conspired with political power to execute Him.

It did not take decades.

It did not take a generation.

It took about three years.

That should give us pause.

The Pattern in Scripture

Scripture gives us repeated warnings:

1️⃣ The Pharisees

They believed they were preserving holiness. They enforced tradition. They elevated law over mercy.

Jesus told them:

“You nullify the word of God by your tradition.”

They thought they were defending righteousness.

They crucified Love.

2️⃣ Saul Before Paul

Saul believed he was defending God by persecuting believers.

He was zealous. Devout. Convinced.

Until he encountered truth and realized he had been fighting the very thing he thought he was protecting.

Religious certainty does not equal divine alignment.

3️⃣ The Golden Calf

The Israelites did not believe they were abandoning God.

They simply wanted something visible, controllable, politically reassuring.

They blended fear with worship.

It looked religious.

It was idolatry.

4️⃣ “Get Behind Me”

Even Peter — faithful Peter — tried to protect Jesus from the path of sacrifice.

Jesus replied:

“Get behind me.”

Even loyalty can become obstruction when fear guides it.

The Side-by-Side: Then and Now

Biblical Pattern	Modern Parallel
Religious leaders enforcing law over mercy	Lawmakers prioritizing restriction over compassion
Tradition elevated above justice	“Originalism” weaponized to restrict rights
Fear of losing power	Fear-based moral panic
Political and religious alliance	Nationalism fused with Christianity
Targeting the marginalized	Targeting LGBTQ+ communities, immigrants, minorities
Calling dissent “evil”	Framing equality as threat

History does not repeat perfectly.

But it rhymes unmistakably.

The Marriage Parallel

Before 1967:

Interracial marriage was called unnatural. Against God’s design. A threat to society.

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia declared:

“Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man.”

Today:

Same-sex marriage is called unnatural. Against God’s design. A threat to society.

And Tennessee now labels some marriages “purported.”

The language changes.

The architecture remains.

The First and Second Trump Administrations: The Context

Across the last decade, we have witnessed:

• Religious rhetoric tied to political power• The elevation of Christian nationalist language• Efforts to roll back LGBTQ protections• Challenges to bodily autonomy• Increased polarization framed as spiritual battle

Some supporters believe these efforts are restoring righteousness.

That belief is sincere for many.

But sincerity is not the same as alignment with mercy.

And the Bible is very clear:

Religious power fused with political authority can become dangerous when it prioritizes control over compassion.

The Spiritual Dimension

This is not merely political.

It is spiritual.

I have said before:

“This is not only a sin — it is immoral and unethical, and it is a human tragedy, and it is a moral failing by anyone who does not recognize love between two adults who want to enter into a sacred union.”— Rev. Paula Josephine Sadler

What we are witnessing is what Scripture repeatedly warns about:

People believing they are defending God while defending hierarchy.

People believing they are protecting faith while protecting power.

The adversarial force in Scripture is not always obvious evil.

Often it is self-righteousness.

Often it is certainty without humility.

Often it is law without mercy.

The Timeline of Warning

1940 – Last recorded lynching in Tennessee1954 – Brown v. Board1954 – White Citizens’ Councils form1964 – Civil Rights Act1967 – Loving v. Virginia1985 – Council of Conservative Citizens formed2015 – President of that organization passes2015 – Obergefell expands marriage equality2020s – Bills introduced questioning recognition of marriages

The arc is visible.

The question is whether we learn from it.

The “Sins of the Father”

Scripture warns that “the sins of the father are visited upon the children.”

This does not mean children are guilty.

It means systems echo unless interrupted.

Prejudice passed through institutions becomes policy.

Policy becomes culture.

Culture becomes identity.

Unless someone says: Stop.

The Danger of Religious Nationalism

When any nation elevates one religious framework above constitutional equality, the pattern historically includes:

• Restricting minority faiths• Policing bodies• Regulating identity• Labeling dissent immoral• Declaring hierarchy divine

That is not revival.

That is regression.

Christian nationalism is not Christianity.

It is political power wearing sacred clothing.

The Question Before Us

Are we defending faith?

Or are we defending fear?

Are we protecting holiness?

Or protecting hierarchy?

Are we aligning with mercy?

Or with tradition at the expense of love?

The Pharisees believed they were right.

Saul believed he was righteous.

The crowd believed they were protecting God’s honor.

History shows what followed.

Final Reflection

It took approximately three years from the start of Jesus’ ministry to His crucifixion.

Opposition escalated quickly when power felt threatened.

We should not ignore that lesson.

Marriage is not weakened when expanded.

Freedom is not diminished when shared.

Law without mercy becomes cruelty.

And righteousness without humility becomes dangerous.

History is not asking us to be silent.

It is asking us to be awake.

— Rev. Paula Josephine Sadler

Universal Rainbow Faith

When Religion Seeks the State

A Structural Comparison: Then and Now

Historical Context: Jerusalem, 1st Century

The Sanhedrin (Religious Authority)

• Jewish governing religious council• Interpreted religious law• Protected theological order• Maintained internal religious stability• Concerned about blasphemy and doctrinal deviation

Rome (Political Authority)

• Imperial governing power• Maintained civil order• Suppressed uprisings• Used crucifixion for political threats• Prioritized stability over theology

The Convergence

Jesus challenged:

• Religious legalism• Institutional hypocrisy• Temple authority• Social exclusion

Religious leaders saw a theological threat.

Roman authorities saw a potential political disturbance.

The two systems intersected.

The charge shifted from: Blasphemy → “He claims to be King.”

That made it a political problem.

Religion and state converged.

Modern Structural Parallel

Certain Religious Institutions (Modern Context)

• Advocate specific moral frameworks• Seek to shape public law• Frame cultural change as spiritual threat• Emphasize tradition and authority

The State (Modern Context)

• Passes legislation• Regulates civil rights• Controls legal recognition• Enforces policy through courts

Side-by-Side Structural Comparison

1st Century Jerusalem	Modern Democratic Context
Religious council enforcing doctrinal order	Religious groups advocating moral legislation
Rome enforcing civil order	State enforcing civil law
Fear of destabilization	Fear of cultural change
Charges reframed politically	Moral language reframed legally
Marginalized teacher executed	Marginalized groups legislated

Important Distinction

This is not about ethnicity.

It is not about Judaism.

It is not about claiming modern leaders are “Pilate” or “the Sanhedrin.”

It is about structure.

When:

• Religious institutions seek state enforcement of doctrine• Political leaders use religious rhetoric for legitimacy• Marginalized groups are framed as threats• Law becomes the mechanism of moral control

History shows convergence can occur.

The Spiritual Warning

The Gospels show us something profound:

Religious leaders believed they were defending God.

Roman authorities believed they were preserving order.

The crowd believed they were protecting holiness.

Each acted with conviction.

Yet the outcome was injustice.

Scripture repeatedly warns that righteousness without mercy becomes cruelty.

Law without humility becomes oppression.

Power without self-examination becomes dangerous.

A Reflection for Today

When legislation begins determining:

• Which marriages are legitimate• Which identities are protected• Which expressions are acceptable• Which bodies are regulated

The question becomes:

Are we protecting justice?

Or protecting hierarchy?

Are we aligning with mercy?

Or aligning with fear?

“Scripture teaches us that religious authority and political authority can converge when they feel threatened. When doctrine seeks enforcement through civil power, history shows that marginalized communities often bear the cost.”