Commentary on same-sex marriage

Erik Nelson
June 4, 2004

A June 2 letter from 26 religious organizations to members of Congress urges them to oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). The letter was arranged with support from the secular left-wing American Civil Liberties Union.

"[We] believe the Federal Marriage Amendment reflects a fundamental disregard for individual civil rights and ignores differences among our nation's many religious traditions," the religious groups said.

The letter makes the argument that the FMA would violate religious freedom for all Americans: "We are particularly concerned that this proposal to amend the Constitution would, for the first time, restrict the civil rights of millions of Americans. That concern alone merits rejection of the Federal Marriage Amendment. We strongly believe that Congress must continue to protect the nation's fundamental religious freedoms and continue to protect our nation's bedrock principle of respecting religious pluralism."

It is interesting to ask where the church leaders signing the letter got the authority to take this stance against the FMA. A few of the religious bodies involved “ the Unitarians and the Reform Jews, for instance “ are on record as favoring same-sex marriage. Naturally, they would oppose an amendment prohibiting it.

But what about the larger mainline Protestant denominations listed as endorsing the later “ the Evangelical Lutherans, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), and the Episcopalians? The highest legislative body of each of these denominations has met within the past year; however, none of the three took any position on the marriage amendment. The largest mainline body in the United States - the 8,000,000 member United Methodist Church - added language to the denomination's Social Principles endorsing "laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

So how do the Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Episcopal officials know that their church members oppose the FMA? They do not. Indeed, if they pay any attention to polls, they know that it's likely that most of their members would support all necessary measures to defend the traditional definition of marriage. But perhaps the Lutheran, Presbyterian and Episcopal officials aren't paying attention.

It has become the trend in mainline denominations for Washington lobby offices to operate rather independently of their membership, and sometimes contrary to their desires. The lobby offices advocate positions that are nearly always to the political Left of their constituents. So their opposition to the FMA (with the support of the ACLU, no less!) is really no surprise.

Most of the Christian churches signing on to this letter have no doctrinal infrastructure to support the argument for same-sex marriage. In fact most of them, including the Episcopal Church, have statements that state explicitly that marriage is between one man and one woman. Since these churches cannot make a principled argument against restricting marriage to one man and one woman (the official stand) their pro-homosexual officials must find an argument of convenience.

And so they've begun to use a religious liberty argument. But like all jerry-rigged arguments, this one simply doesn't work.

The letter argues that the FMA essentially makes one religious viewpoint on marriage the law of the land. This is not quite true. Most Christians actually do subscribe to the idea that marriage should be between one man and one woman. But many non-Christians believe the same. And the fact that most Christians and non- Christians agree that society has an obligation to help the poor wouldn't make anti-poverty legislation a violation of the First Amendment. Just because most Christians agree on the definition of marriage does not mean that religious reasons are the only reasons to support the FMA. Some, like Stanley Kurtz, have made convincing non- religious arguments against same-sex marriage. For him, the FMA does not enshrine a particular religious view of marriage, but rather represents the best hope for the common good of society.

Those who support same-sex marriage also use religious arguments in support for their position. If they passed an amendment to the Constitution saying that marriage in the United States shall consist of two people regardless of sex, wouldn't that be a violation of religious freedom as well? That position certainly comports more with some religious viewpoints on marriage than others. Would it be violating my religious liberty?

Let's look at it from a different point of view. If same-sex marriages were made legal, wouldn't that result amount to favoring the Reform Jewish position over that of, say, the United Methodists or Southern Baptists? Wouldn't it be enshrining one view into law? Somehow I suspect that those on the religious Left would say no. But they would be inconsistent.

The problem with the religious liberty argument is that the government must make a choice between one view of marriage or the other. No matter which side government takes, it will be a position that is more favorable to some religious outlooks than others.

The only option would be for government to get out of the marriage business altogether and completely privatize marriage. There are all sorts of non-religious reasons why privatizing marriage would be a bad idea. Surely the government has a strong interest in the institution that provides the best environment for rearing the next generation of citizens. But the religious left advocates for same- sex marriage do not hold this view. They speak of state-recognized marriage as a social good that they wish to extend to homosexuals.

The deeper problem with the religious liberty argument against the FMA is that the FMA doesn't actually restrict religious practice. Reform Jews and Unitarian Universalists can perform same-sex marriage ceremonies today if they so choose. In the eyes of those religious bodies, the people involved are married. Current government policy does not tell churches for whom they can and cannot perform ceremonies or rites. If the FMA were approved, that situation would not change.

The religious left needs to begin to grasp the idea that if they want the government to legislate on issues touching on deeply held religious beliefs (whether it be marriage, euthanasia, war and peace, the death penalty or any number of other issues), government will eventually reflect in its policy something closer to one religious view than another. This is not a violation of religious liberty. It is the inevitable result of a democratic society where people of various beliefs will debate how to promote the common good.

It's pretty clear that those on the religious left want to see their own views reflected in public policy. In the end this letter isn't about religious liberty “ it's about church staffers eager to support same-sex marriage, despite the absence of any basis for that position in church doctrine. And same-sex marriage is a policy that the American people “ some for religious reasons and some for pragmatic reasons“ simply do not support.