Same-Sex Marriage: Living with our Deepest Differences

Two facts stand out in my thinking about same-sex marriage . One is that putting same-sex unions on par with traditional, male-female marriages is to water down the whole concept of marriage and what it is. And marriage and family life is already being battered by many modern currents to the detriment of the common good of society. The second fact is that men and women with a same-sex orientation have, to our shame, often been treated unjustly by society, including by many Christians. They have been discriminated against in employment, bullied at school, and made the butt of jokes. In what admittedly is a very sensitive area, the question thereby becomes how to protect and defend marriage as it has rightly been understood and at the same time treat those with a same-sex orientation with the respect they as God’s image bearers deserve. The answer to that question must protect both the rights of gay persons and the rights of those of us who disagree with much of the gay agenda, including its demand for government to sanction same-sex marriages.

Balancing these aims suggests that marriage as a legally established institution with rights and responsibilities outlined in law should be limited to male-female couples. To do otherwise would open a tangle of legal issues and problems, since marriage and marriage law has developed in the context of male-female couples and of children conceived and born from such unions. Also, doing so would put society’s imprimatur of approval on unions that many of us consider inappropriate and contrary to God’s law.

But if we deny marriage to same-sex couples, how do we protect their legitimate rights and assure they have a place in a pluralistic society where all can live together in one society? To me this points to the wisdom of civil union laws that allow same-sex couples to live together with certain rights and responsibilities clearly and legally established. Such civil union laws would encourage monogamous, permanent relationships—surely preferable to promiscuous behavior—and could provide for shared property rights, the right to reciprocal medical decisions, inheritance rights, and other such rights and responsibilities. The exact nature and content of civil union laws need to be worked out through the normal give and take of the public policy making process.

Having briefly outlined my position, I must face the fact that several states and the District of Columbia have already sanctioned same-sex marriages. It is likely other states—by legislative action or judicial decision—will do so as well. How should Christian citizens, indeed all citizens, who reject the appropriateness of same-sex marriage react when their states authorize same-sex marriage? In such situations it is important that those opposed to same-sex marriage—while rejecting it for themselves and fearing its long-term consequences for society—accept the fact we live in a religiously pluralistic society and seek to live in peace with same-sex, married couples, just as we do with others whose behavior and life styles run counter to Christian norms.

But if gay rights advocates also truly believe in a pluralistic society, they need to accept the fact that there are fellow citizens who have sincerely-held religious objections to their life-style and their desire for the state to legally authorize their marriages.

This means that when states legally establish same-sex marriage it is essential that they include in the authorization language strong religious exemption language. Such language would provide that churches, organizations, and small, family-owned businesses do not have to provide services to same-sex couples if they have long-standing, sincerely-held, religiously-based objections to doing so. I am thinking here, for example, of churches not having to rent their facilities for a same-sex wedding, a Christian or Orthodox Jewish adoption agency not having to place children with same-sex couples, a faith-based college not having to allowed same-sex couples in their married student housing units, and a small photography studio not having to take pictures for a same-sex wedding ceremony. All these examples are based on conflicts and issues that have already arisen. The Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance has on its website model religious exemption language such as I am calling for here that states and localities can use. (See www.irfalliance.org)

There is precedent for using religious exemptions as a key means for allowing us as members of one society to live together with our deepest differences. When we have had a military draft we have provided exemptions for conscientious objectors. After the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision of the Supreme Court, Congress quickly passed legislation allowing medical personnel and institutions with conscientious objections to abortion the legal right to refuse to participate in providing abortions. Exemptions such as these are rooted in a mutual respect for each other and our differing beliefs. The same approach should apply to the same-sex marriage question that is causing deep and bitter division today.

In my thinking, this means Christians and others opposed to same-sex marriage should support civil unions for same-sex couples who desire certain legal protections for their relationships; it means same-sex couples should support exemptions for those with sincere religious objections to providing services in support of their marriages. In that way we can live together as one society in spite of very deep differences. And that, after all, is what pluralism and diversity—which we all claim to value—are all about.