It's important to distinguish between banning homosexual relationships and banning the state promotion and recognition of it (ie through marriage). Very few sensible conservatives believed in the laws behind the Lawrence decision, even if they often disagreed with the manner in which the Court struck it down. (Justice Thomas, for instance, was adamently opposed to the Texas sodomy laws, but equally opposed to the Court's ability to overturn them.)

Your open letter here appears to be a passionate cry for acceptance (or at least tolerance) for homosexual relationships. I don't think you'll find many people advocating here or elsewhere that people such as Ellen should be denied the ability to engage in homosexual relationships. I can count on one hand the number of people who I know that would favor using government force to prevent them, and that very small portion of the popultion seems to be the target of this post.

But actually granting privileges, and in effect promoting homosexual relationships - which is what gay marriage does - lies on a completely different plane. I can think of countless behaviors which I may not take part in, or I may believe are sinful, but which I do not think should be outlawed. Actually promoting those behaviors, with tax dollars, is an understandably debateable topic.

For instance, I may believe adultery is sinful, but I do not think the government should punish adulterers or prevent adulterers from forming relationships. I might understandably be concerned though when the government starts granting tax breaks explicitly to adulterers. Am I comparing homosexuals to adulterers? No, but I am comparing the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe both are sins, that large amounts of Americans engage in both sins, and that an overwhelming majority of Americans would oppose granting explicit tax promotions for either.

In my mind, the underlying motivation behind many gay marriage advocates is the desire for acceptance of homosexuals from the society as a whole, and granting marriage rights is a tangible and significant way to achieve that acceptance. But that acceptance, or at least tolerance, can be achieved without marriage licenses. I agree with your conclusion that gay marriage is a foregone conclusion eventually, but I think it would be wiser to gain acceptance first through public opinion, and then through the laws, not vice versa.

All 50 states do, in fact, allow adulterers to marry each other, thus, in a real sense, providing tax benefits for adultery.

If I am a married man, and I commit adultery with a woman married to someone else, I have a terrific opportunity to acquire tax benefits and other perks recognizing the legitimacy of my relationship.

Should I and my companion in sin desire tax breaks and other benefits that come with marriage, we have a simple legal mechanism for doing so -- it's called "divorce and remarriage," and it happens all the time.

But gay marriage appears to be a much more explicit condoning of that particular act. Whereas divorce and remarriage can be done for a littany of reasons, and usually isn't for one particular reason anyway, gay marriage is explicitly promoting homosexual relationships. Divorce and remarriage does not explicitly promote or condone adultery. Nevertheless, your torte is a good one.

(It's worth noting here that many opponents of gay marriage will often point to "no fault" divorce as the true big step toward gay marriage.)

Josh wrote:

But actually granting privileges, and in effect promoting homosexual relationships - which is what gay marriage does - lies on a completely different plane. I can think of countless behaviors which I may not take part in, or I may believe are sinful, but which I do not think should be outlawed. Actually promoting those behaviors, with tax dollars, is an understandably debateable topic.

I disagree with the notion that by allowing gays to marry government is endorsing or promoting sin. By that reasoning, allowing adulterers or liars to marry would be promoting the sin of adultery or lying. It is not, to me, a question of "granting privileges" to gay people to get married, it's a question of allowing them to do what straight people simply take for granted, marry the person they love.

In my mind, the underlying motivation behind many gay marriage advocates is the desire for acceptance of homosexuals from the society as a whole, and granting marriage rights is a tangible and significant way to achieve that acceptance. But that acceptance, or at least tolerance, can be achieved without marriage licenses.

Yes, as I admitted in my post that is indeed part of my motivation for advocating gay marriage. I don't think it's the exclusive motivation, and I think someone can be in favor of gay marriage without having that motivation. But yes, that is part of mine, because I don't think a gay couple should be treated any differently as a matter of law than a straight couple. I don't believe there is any meaningful difference between the two relationships. And I don't think the argument that they shouldn't be allowed to marry because that would promote or endorse their moral failings is a compelling one.

By that reasoning, allowing adulterers or liars to marry would be promoting the sin of adultery or lying.

Except that the government doesn't grant marriage licenses explicitly for adulterers or liars, it is a byproduct of no fault divorces.

For what it's worth, I oppose the FMA and I'd favor scrapping the government institution of marriage altogether. At the least I agree with C.S. Lewis, who wrote:

There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.

I'm interested in everyone's thoughts about this, and its implications.

Josh, you write, "Am I comparing homosexuals to adulterers?"

I would suggest, with all due respect, that you are--but that you cannot bring yourself to admit it. Else why do you bring up adultery at all? What work does it do for you, if not as a comparison?

Also, even if we limit the question to tax breaks, still bringing up adultery still serves the anti-marriage side rather poorly: If we are to decide our tax code based on the list of things that most people find sinful, then we would have to start from scratch and write a very different code than the one we have today.

For starters, let us give tax breaks to those who show forgiveness. I've read the Bible too, and it seems that forgiving one's enemies is even more important to Christians than being heterosexual in conduct. Let's say that if someone wrongs you in a criminal case, and if you sign a form saying that you forgive the criminal, you should be entitled to an extra deduction. If the tax code is really the place to administer our communal moral standards, then surely this is a reasonable proposal: It coerces no one (you don't HAVE to offer forgiveness), and it speaks to an even more fundamental Christian goal than forbidding gay marriages.

Now I don't really believe that you would agree with any of this--but I am struggling with why it is that heterosexuality alone, of all the traditional Christian ethos, must be enforced through the U.S. tax code. It just doesn't make sense to me.

As a side note, you are also right that a great deal of tolerance can be achieved without marriage licenses. But tolerance alone doesn't bring social security survivor benefits, joint child custody, immigration rights, or the power to sue for wrongful death. Each one of the rights I've just mentioned can only be secured through marriage, whether in some or even all parts of the country.

We want civil marriage not to convince anyone else of anything--but merely to win for our relationships the same treatment from the government that all others receive. A government promising equal justice for all should do no less. But when even adulterous, loveless, abusive straight relationships get protected treatment, the idea that our marriage law (or our tax code) rests on Christianity becomes very difficult to believe.

In that both adultery and homosexuality are considered sins by a large majority of Americans, I am comparing the two. Beyond that, I hold no comparisons, especially considering that adultery often harms more than just the adulterer (the spouse being cheated on, for isntance, and sometimes children). The two are vastly different in numerous ways, but as I said, both are typically considered sins by Biblical literature and by most Americans.

The problem in discussing homosexual marriage for Christians is that they often look for analogies but can't find any that are suitable. All are imperfect.

I don't think it is any longer true than an overwhelming percentage of Americans consider homosexuality to be a sin. One Pew poll put that number at 55%. A Lake Snell poll indicated that if people had to choose between whether homosexuality is a sin or inherent, more opted toward the "inherent" view. Some might say that is a false choice -- that is, something may be both inherent and sinful -- but it indicates where public opinion may be moving. I think the percentage considering homosexualty sinful was bumped up this past year because of some Republican efforts to portray gays in an entirely negative light.

In my area, adulterers are not treated with any where near the scorn that homosexuals are.

What almost amuses me is that I could approvingly quote John Piper's view that God deliberately caused the tsunami in order to bring people to Christ much easier than I could encourage people to treat gays with dignity and respect. If some people believe that God is so full of hatred as to cause such horrible death and suffering, then it doesn't surprise me that so many have a hard time having a loving attitude toward gays.

As I have written before, however, I do not consider it bigotry or intolerance to believe that homosexuality is wrong or a sin.

Josh, some distinctions between a "Christian" marriage and marriage recognized by the state exist currently. For instance, my Catholic friend is engaged to a divorcee. She will be unable to have a marriage recognized by her church -- although will have no problem having a state-sanctioned marriage.

I'm still unsure how this all plays out in an individuals life. Will my friend be considered "single" in the eyes of the Catholic church (and therefore invited to their social mixers?) Since she'll be having children with her un-husband, is she having "bastards"? Does she go to hell? It's Curious.

However, if this type of distinction, would convince the ultra-religious, anti-Gay Marriage folks to "allow" the government to permit Same-sex marriage...then okay. I find it ludicrous, but so what? I don't recognize their not-recognizing the marriage as real...so win-win?

I disagree with the notion that by allowing gays to marry government is endorsing or promoting sin. By that reasoning, allowing adulterers or liars to marry would be promoting the sin of adultery or lying.

Thanks, Ed--this is the simplest of points and yet it can't be repeated enough. Permission and advocacy are two entirely separate things, but the anti-gay-marriage forces are hell-bent on blurring them.

The state allowed Britney Spears to get married on a drunken whim, and then to divorce 48 hours later. Does this mean the state "advocates," or "promotes," or "encourages" meaningless 48-hour marriages?

Your heart is clearly in the right place. Your sentiments are admirable. But I would encourage you think about the issue with your head, not your heart.

The notion that the traditional, time-tested view of marriage is somehow unfair to homosexuals or inhumane has a rather simplistic appeal to it. But with critical analysis it immediately falls apart.

Homosexuals already have access to marriage on the same terms as anyone else; they may marry an unmarried, consenting adult who is a member of the opposite sex and is (in some states) free of "loathesome disease." The response is obvious: That does not, for the homosexual, constitute true access to marriage because the homosexual does not want to marry someone of the opposite sex.

The two-fold reply is simple: That doesn't change the fact that the access is on equal terms, and Since when are we entitled to have our preferences protected by force of law? Certainly the polygamist would prefer to marry two consenting adults; the pervert would prefer to marry a consenting child; the rapist would prefer one who is unconsenting. I would prefer not to have to wait for the bus to pick me up after work. Barry Bonds would prefer not to have to answer any more questions about steroids.

As it happens, I have been posting on this very subject at my blog and, as you might imagine, have incited several comments. I invite you check out the conversation I have been having with some very thoughtful people at http://www.dojustly.blogspot.com/

Josh-

I have no problem with the idea of making civil marriages something distinct from religious ones. There would obviously be some overlap, as some Christian churches would undoubtedly choose to perform gay marriages while most likely would not. But that is up to each individual church to decide for themselves.

As for the argument that homosexuality is different than adultery because gay marriage would more explicitly endorse the sin itself, I still don't find this a compelling argument, for this reason: it could have applied just as well to interracial marriages just a single generation ago. Many people, undoubtedly most people at some point not all that far in the past, would have argued that racial intermixing was not only a sin, but was an affront to a moral and Christian civilization. And they would have argued that allowing the races to marry was a direct endorsement of that sin, perhaps even "actually promoting those behaviors with tax dollars" and "granting priveleges" to such sinful behavior. The point is that the mere fact that a majority of people consider homosexuality to be a sin is no more a justification for not giving them equality than the fact that a majority once believed the same thing about miscegenation justified a pre-Loving refusal to allow those of different races to marry.

Certainly the polygamist would prefer to marry two consenting adults; the pervert would prefer to marry a consenting child; the rapist would prefer one who is unconsenting.

You have absolutely no idea how grotesque that sounds, do you?

If you can't distinguish between consensual sexual relations between adults and rape, there's really no hope, is there?

AJ,

If California passed a law that each of its jurisdictions could pass marriage laws as they saw fit and then several jurisdictions passed laws allowing for only same-sex marriage, would you consider that fair to heterosexuals? -- after all, they would be just as free to marry as gays would be.

Uncle Kvetch,

I encourage you to read more carefully.

Mr. Thomas,

Such laws certainly would not be discriminatory against heterosexuals. But would such legal creations be marriage? That is the question. We cannot answer it with (admirable but misguided) sentiments about equality.

AJ Mac wrote:

Your heart is clearly in the right place. Your sentiments are admirable. But I would encourage you think about the issue with your head, not your heart.

The only thing I ever think with is my head, or more accurately the brain inside of it. My heart pumps blood, just as yours does. But I presume that you mean that one should think logically rather than emotionally, in which case I would suggest that one can do both simultaneously.

The notion that the traditional, time-tested view of marriage is somehow unfair to homosexuals or inhumane has a rather simplistic appeal to it. But with critical analysis it immediately falls apart.

I think your conception of exclusively straight marriage as "traditional and time-tested" is historically inaccurate. In point of fact, the notion of marriage based upon romantic love is actually a rather recent invention. Throughout most of human history and in most societies, marriage was either polygamous in nature or engaged in primarily for reasons of survival, financial considerations or accumulation of power and property. I think marriage based upon romantic love is a significant improvement over those "traditional and time-tested" conceptions of marriage. I think it's far more conducive to human happiness and fulfillment. And I think extending that logic to include gay couples will continue to improve the institution of marriage, as well as continue to extend the principle that all people are equal under the law, a principle I believe is far more important than soothing the feelings of those who want to feel superior by claiming for themselves what they seek to deny for others.

Homosexuals already have access to marriage on the same terms as anyone else; they may marry an unmarried, consenting adult who is a member of the opposite sex and is (in some states) free of "loathesome disease."

This was precisely the argument used by the state in Loving v. Virginia, that there was no real discrimination because blacks had access to marriage on the same terms as whites - they were equally free to marry someone of the same race and equally unfree to marry someone of a different race. The argument was rightly rejected by the courts then, and is no more compelling to me now. The distinction is obvious - straights are free to marry any non-related consenting adult they fall in love with, while gays are not. Those are relevant and accurate comparisons, while the comparison to the desire to marry a minor or marry someone non-consenting are not.

Also, the "state" recognizes and provides for divorce in numerous instances in which the Bible doesn't approve of divorce. By allowing its courts to be used to disolve marriages, is the state in essence promoting and recognizing divorce in ways that are distinguishable from the state promoting homosexuality if homosexual marriage is allowed?

Josh, sorry if I changed your line from "large majority' to "overwhelming percentage." It wasn't intentional.

I believe that gays are, and should be, free to choose who they live with, love, embrace, hug, cry, buy homes with, etc.

Gays can marry, in the sense of making a lifelong commitment, recognized by family and friends, to the person they love.

However, I do not think it is in the state's interest to assign special legal status to same-sex couples. Just as I think it's okay for the state to discriminate against renters by giving a tax deduction to homeowners, I think it's okay for the state to "discriminate" against other relationships by giving a special status to the pairing of a man and a woman.

I believe that such pairings play a central and special role in society, and should be encouraged, via state recognition. Those relationships cannot be approximated by a same-sex pairing, or by other types of relationships.

Period. I don't think that gay couples are bad, any less than I think boyfriend-girlfriend couples are bad. I just think that the decision of a man and a woman to marry is something unique and special to society.

Period.

Mr. Brayton,

Throughout history, marriage has consisted of the joining of two unlike persons (male and female). The inclusion of polygamy in that history does not change that inescapable fact.

Indeed, the essence of marriage is the joining of opposite genders. To redefine marriage to include same-sex couples is to say that gender matters not. (Say it like Yoda and it sounds better.) Once one gender is removed, all the strengths, attributes and character of that gender are also removed. Are we, as a society, prepared to say that women or men (take your pick) are not necessary for family?

The Loving analogy is tired. And most of my African American friends find it insulting. Loving dealt with a real instance of discrimination. And Loving dealt with a law that ADDED a requirement to marriage, namely race. Goodridge, by contrast, REMOVES an essential element of marriage, namely one or the other gender.

Against it wrote:

However, I do not think it is in the state's interest to assign special legal status to same-sex couples.

I don't think such matters are decided by what is in the state's interest. Indeed, I don't think states have interests. People, individually and collectively, have interests and states (that is, governments) are instituted to protect those interests. Foremost among those interests are inalienable rights and equality before the law.

More importantly, the notion that this gives same-sex couples "special legal status" is simply wrong. Given the fact that 97% of the population already has the same status if they choose to do so, allowing the other 3% access to it cannot sanely be construed as giving them anything "special".

I believe that such pairings play a central and special role in society, and should be encouraged, via state recognition. Those relationships cannot be approximated by a same-sex pairing, or by other types of relationships.

But if gay marriage doesn't actually do anything to damage pairings among straight people - and no one has yet made anything approaching a coherent argument for why it would - it simply isn't relevant that straight pairings are a good thing. I agree with you that marriage, among all of the possible types of relationships, is a special type of relationship. I also agree that by rewarding those who are willing to make that commitment and take on the responsibilities that come with it, government encourages an institution that is healthy for society. I just think that is equally as true of gay relationships as it is of straight ones.

"Are we, as a society, prepared to say that women or men (take your pick) are not necessary for family?"

We already do. If it is wrong for two women to raise a child, then it must be even worse for a single woman to raise a child. Should we take all those kids away--and put them in "normal" homes?

Against It, I've been meaning to bring up the age-old discrimination of renters vs. homeowners for months now. Thanks for reminding me. If only people could see how I was BORN a renter...it's not a choice.

Yes, good analogy for the topic we're discussing.

"And most of my African American friends find it insulting."

Really? Most of MY African American friends find it apt.

"Throughout history, marriage has consisted of the joining of two unlike persons (male and female)."

And are we, as a society, chained to our past and thus unable to progress? If it is wrong for the state to single out particular relationships for official approval and recognition but to deny other relationships that recognition, then it shouldn't matter how much time the mold of history has had to accumulate on the institution of marriage; it should be changed.

Mr. Kuznicki,

Really? We already encourage by law single parenthood? To the contrary, paternity laws, child-support laws, visitation rights, marriage incentives, and a host of other laws (rightly) encourage parents NOT to go it alone but rather to pair up in heterosexual commitments for the benefit of children.

Joshua wrote: "But actually granting privileges, and in effect promoting homosexual relationships - which is what gay marriage does..." Granting the PRIVILEGE of a FUNDAMENTAL right. How does one do this? Either it is a right or a privilege, isn't it? The Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right. Aside from bigotry/hatred I cannot see why same sex marriage is not legal.

AJ Mac wrote: "Homosexuals already have access to marriage on the same terms as anyone else; they may marry an unmarried, consenting adult who is a member of the opposite sex". (To ride Ed's coat-tails...) So if a law a generation ago stated "one may marry an unmarried, consenting adult who is a member of the opposite sex and same race" would be perfectly acceptable, right? I mean blacks would have the same opportunity as whites to marry someone within their own race, right? Hence, no discrimination.

ajmac wrote:

Throughout history, marriage has consisted of the joining of two unlike persons (male and female). The inclusion of polygamy in that history does not change that inescapable fact.

Of course it does, primarily because you continue to misrepresent reality. Polygamy does not consist of "the joining of two unlike persons", it consists of the joining of one person (always male, of course) with several other "unlike persons" simultaneously. The point was that merely declaring the conception of marriage you prefer as "traditional and time-tested" when that conception is in fact fairly new in relation to far older and more traditional conceptions of marriage that you reject isn't a terribly compelling argument.

The Loving analogy is tired. And most of my African American friends find it insulting. Loving dealt with a real instance of discrimination. And Loving dealt with a law that ADDED a requirement to marriage, namely race. Goodridge, by contrast, REMOVES an essential element of marriage, namely one or the other gender.

This is an excellent example of the non-argument. The fact that you think it's "tired" or that anonymous people you say are your friends find it "offensive" has nothing to do with whether the argument is true, which is all that really should matter. The only attempt you make to actually engage the logic of the comparison simply isn't relevant to the argument you were making. The comparison wasn't between interracial marriage and gay marriage, it was between the arguments used against both. And that comparison was accurate, whether it's "tired" or "offensive" or whatever other emotional reaction you may have to it. Now you claim that Loving was a "real instance of discrimination", but the exact same argument you made earlier to dismiss the claim of discrimination when it involves gay relationships was used to dismiss that claim in Loving as well. So at the very least, if you want to continue to argue that it was "real" discrimination then but not "real" discrimination now, you'll have to come up with a different rationale for that argument than the one you offered here. It appears to me that what you really mean is that if you think discrimination is justified then it isn't "real" and when you think it's not justified then it is "real". But I would suggest that if a law was passed that allowed only gays to marry, you wouldn't be quite so quick to dismiss the discrimination claim. One might even think that you were "thinking with your heart" instead of your head.

Jason's comment was a brilliant one, and the main point of it -- the analogy of promoting forgiveness through tax breaks -- has not been answered.

It seems that Josh is willing to admit a certain amount of inconsistency in defending the regulation of marriage as it stands in the status quo and in disallowing gay marriage. But I'm unclear what his proposal is for dissolving this inconsistency. For the sake of clarification, is your proposal that (a) that the state should get rid of "no fault" divorces and thereby penalize adultery, or (b) that the state should cease regulating marriage altogether, or (c) that the state and church should continue their separate systems of regulation and cease trying to bring each other's systems into accord with each other?

Ed, Great comments. You put it so much better than I did. I must have been thinking with my liver again.

Caleb, I'm not entirely sure how I feel. But I'm certainly not in favor of option "(a)". "(b)" and "(c)", though, seem possible and at least more favorable. I'm open to criticisms of either position though.

I'd also concur that Jason's analogy of promoting forgiveness through tax breaks is indeed strong, and highlights a significant inconsistency among many Christian consertives in their position as it relates to homosexual marriage. I think you'll find inconsistency on both "sides" of the debate, but I find more inconsistency coming from conservatives on this particular issue. (Although, if I were a polygamist I might feel differently.)

Joshua Claybourn wrote: Except that the government doesn't grant marriage licenses explicitly for adulterers or liars, it is a byproduct of no fault divorces.

And it should not grand marriage licenses explicitly to gay couples either. It should instead grant the same license to all requesting couples regardless of gender composition. Just like there aren't "marriages" and "remarriages" there shouldn't be "straight marriages" and "gay marriages." It should all just be marriage. Plain and simple.

From another angle, if the government isn't explicitly denying marriage to people guilty of the sin of adultery, what business does it have explicitly denying marriage to people guilty of the (debatable) sin of homosexuality? When the government starts using religious deffinitions of sin to grant and deny rights or privileges, it starts sounding an aweful lot like an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

Ed,
You wrote (earlier):

I think your conception of exclusively straight marriage as "traditional and time-tested" is historically inaccurate. In point of fact, the notion of marriage based upon romantic love is actually a rather recent invention. Throughout most of human history and in most societies, marriage was either polygamous in nature or engaged in primarily for reasons of survival, financial considerations or accumulation of power and property. I think marriage based upon romantic love is a significant improvement over those "traditional and time-tested" conceptions of marriage.

I agree that the romantic notion of marriage for love is relatively new, but disagree that it is a new idea that parents seek the best for their children. I think it is primarily the very powerful (and perhaps very poor) that married for only for survival or financial considerations. Or for that matter the contention that most of those resulting marriages were loveless. Given the high divorce rates, child neglect and abuse, and other social indicators in the midst of unprecedented personal wealth, your assumption of improvement may be incorrect.

I think one of the failings of the current idealization of marriage for romantic love is that it emphasises marriage as a relationship between adults and that when one "falls out of love" there is no reason to continue the marraige. Both of these factors ignore both children and the extended family (caring for your parents, i.e., the elderly).

AJ, Heather and AJ's black friends obviously share one overwhelming characteristic with (as far as I can tell) every conservative who opposes gay marriage or even civil unions. This is the utter refusal to recognize that gays are in fact "born that way". This is what allows black Christians who disagree with conservatives on most other things to stand with them on hating gays. And don't give me that crap about just hating the sinner or just not believing they should have "special" rights. Virtually every one of the state constitutional amendments that have been passed give the lie to that. The blacks can say "I was born black but the queers CHOOSE to commit this mortal sin.". I don't think there is any scientific study or combination of studies that would ever persuade any of them of how much sexual orientation is determined by biology. It's particularly telling that AJ equates sexual orientation with any other personal preference, ranging from the irritation of a celebrity with reporters to the favorite of conservatives, equating a homosexual's orientation with the actions of a violent criminal.

Josh, thanks for your very fair and gentlemanly response.

Both (b) and (c) seem to me to encourage a hands-off response as far as Christians are concerned. So if you think C.S. Lewis is right, then why should it matter to you what the state does or does not "promote"?

I ask sincerely. This is a question that people of faith must wrestle with whether they are on the right or left side of the political spectrum. If Christians on "the left" may oppose the use of the state to enforce prohibitions against same-sex marriage, but then what authorizes Christian pacifists among them to support the use of the state to promote peace or, to use Jason's example, forgiveness and generosity?

Likewise, if Christians on "the right" oppose the use of the state to force people to be generous (by forcing them, say, to give to Social Security), then how can they support the use of the state to enforce their ideas about marriage?

I think I have an answer to why the Christians in my first case are more consistent, but since I'm not yet entirely convinced of it myself, I will not offer it here. Suffice it to say that these tangles are enough to make me wonder whether (c) is in fact the best position for Christians of all persuasions to take. But again, I do not advance that claim absolutely, since I am not absolutely convinced of it myself. Like all people, I guess, I want to protect my own pet beliefs and am loath to see them go, even if that means it will make beliefs with which I disagree more defeasible.

I truly admire your admission that there is inconsistency in certain positions that Christian conservatives take. We are all bundles of inconsistency, at least unless we are cursed by the hobgoblin of little minds. I confess that many of my own political positions are woefully inconsistent, especially when it comes to the intersection of my private and public lives, or my religious and political beliefs. So the best we can do is try to minimize inconsistency as much as possible, and always be ready to see it in ourselves.

That said, on this particular issue, I'm not sure where you think the inconsistency lies on the other "side." As Jason says, he's not trying to convince anyone that something is or isn't wrong, or that they should or shouldn't engage in some activity, so I'm not sure I see the inconsistency in his asking for equal treatment under the law.

Again, I appreciate and truly do admire your very forthright admission that you find more inconsistency in the conservative Christian position on this issue, but what inconsistency is there on the other side at all?

A modest proposal: Would somebody please define marriage? Then I might be better able to think this through. Thanks for your consideration.

Erico: It's an excellent question.

Anti-SSM people would say "marriage is a union between one man and one woman for life." They would regard any attempt to deviate from this definition as preposterous--fully as absurd as if we added "and peanut butter sandwiches" to the end of the definition, or maybe more so.

Pro-SSM people would say that marriage is a lifelong devotion to one other person, regardless of gender. Even many dictionaries note that "marriage" is not exclusively the union of a man and a woman; the more complete ones also add that marriage can apply to any particularly apt partnership that includes the characteristics of the man-woman union. For example, we could speak of the marriage of democracy to individual rights in western political thought, which, while not strictly a biological union, does still aim at what we mean.

Advocates of same-sex marriage claim that two people of the same sex can achieve a union that is similar to that of opposite-sex couples. Opponents say that they cannot.

Both sides agree that marriages are the fundamental unit of family life, and both would like to protect their own marriages against the predations of the state or of private individuals.

The anti-SSM side believes that this protection is best achieved by denying same-sex couples even the right to call their unions "marriages." Anti-SSMers often hold that same-sex marriage will corrode or debase heterosexual marriages.

Those who support SSM seek civil and legal protections for their unions, which are often subject to serious disruption in areas of child custody, property rights, power of attorney, and even immigration rights. This last is a particularly serious problem, because where a straight citizen can marry the person he or she loves--and allow them to stay in the country--same-sex partners have no means of attaining this protection. Hundreds of other rights attach to the institution of civil marriage, and many of them cannot be attained by other means.

The pro- and anti-SSM definitions come into conflict in two distinct arenas, the church and the state. Some churches allow same-sex marriage, while others do not. The United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalists, and Reform Jews all welcome same-sex unions, for example, while nearly all evangelical churches, the Catholic Church, and the more traditional branches of Judaism reject them. Many mainstream religions are divided on the question.

In the U.S., the state does not perform or endorse the religious content of any marriage, although it does recognize church ceremonies as civilly valid, provided that these ceremonies conform with the laws of the jurisdiction. For example, civil marriages in Virginia can only exist between a man and a woman. While religious denominations in Virginia can still marry whomever they wish, these marriages do not have the protection of Virginia law. On the contrary, the laws of Virginia go out of their way to put ub barriers against anything even faintly resembling a same-sex marriage.

In Massachusetts, the state recognizes both same- and opposite-sex marriages, and these may be performed either in a church or by a civil official. No church in Massachusetts is EVER forced to perform same-sex marriages. If the church decides that its doctrines forbid these marriages, then the church does not perform them, and this is the end of the story.

I believe civil marriage should be gender-blind, but I would never presume to dictate to a religious denomination how they ought to conduct their affairs. Not being religious, I have no authority in this realm whatsoever.

I do think that both religious and civil marriages must continue to exist as separate yet viable entities; each performs a distinct and valuable function. I do not think that full privatization of marriage is a workable solution, as I have written about in the past:

http://www.positiveliberty.com/2005/02/i-agree-and-yet.html

I would also like to see some greater clarity in the debate, especially regarding the separation of religious from civil marriage. It disgusts me when certain elements of the anti-SSM side use scare tactics like claiming that churches will be forced to perform same-sex unions. This simply is not true.

Consider the Catholic Church, which takes quite literally the command Christ gave that we should never divorce each other. The Catholic Church to this day will not marry divorced persons, even though divorce has been legal for decades virtually everywhere. Nor is it being pressured to marry the divorced, even though most people do not take Christ's words quite so literally anymore. This example suggests quite strongly that if same-sex civil marriage became a reality, and if most people generally accepted it, still no church would be forced to change its doctrines.

This is why Josh's earlier citation of C.S. Lewis puzzles me somewhat: We already have what Lewis desired, namely separation of civil and religious marriage. I entirely approve of this setup; I applaud it. I seek only to change the civil marriage law, not to pry into anyone's churches. I don't even go there on Sunday morning--why should I care about the rest of the week?

If it would clarify matters, I would also support the requirement of two separate marriage ceremonies--one in the church, and one at city hall. This would avoid the unseemliness of ministers acting as agents of the state. I would add that France already does things this way, but I'm not sure it would help my case. (evil grin...)

I believe civil marriage should be gender-blind, but I would never presume to dictate to a religious denomination how they ought to conduct their affairs. Not being religious, I have no authority in this realm whatsoever.

Jason's point here made me think of something else. Why don't Christians say the same thing? "Not being citizens, we have not authority in this realm whatsoever."

Perhaps that sounds unduly provocative, but I think Christians often rush unthinkingly to the conclusion that we -- as Christians -- have authority in the civil realm. Doing that is less honest, I would submit, than what Jason says here. There are plenty of strands within our scriptures and traditions which militate (no pun intended) against the idea of a church militant, or the idea that the church should have authority within the civil sphere.

Consider one of the few passages in the New Testament where homosexual practices are mentioned -- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Placed in its proper context, this verse comes at the end of a long passage that begins in 5:1. Paul is dealing with the fact that a member of the Corinthian church is "living with his father's wife." He condemns this incestuous relationship and reminds them that in a previous letter he instructed them not to associate with this man.

Interestingly, though, Paul adds this in 5:9-13:

9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons— 10not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. 11But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? 13God will judge those outside. ‘Drive out the wicked person from among you.’

After making this point -- that his instructions only apply to those who bear "the name of brother or sister," Paul goes on to strengthen the point in 6:1-8 He asks why brothers and sisters would bring lawsuits against one another in a civil court. Why would they bring their disputes before unbelievers, he says, rather than settling those matters amongst themselves? Parenthetically, he even asks why Christians would pursue lawsuits: "Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud -- and believers at that."

The next verse is the passage that mentions, along with the greedy and drunkards, "male prostitutes" and "sodomites." But these verses can only be seen in the larger context of Paul's argument in condemning such practices, he is speaking of those who are "inside" the church. To claim that his judgment is of "outsiders" would be like taking a lawsuit that belongs properly within the church to a court of unbelievers.

Why, then, do Christians persist in trying to get "the courts," so to speak, the civil sphere, to settle our disputes for us? Why not say, as both Jason and St. Paul seem to be saying, "What have I to do with judging those outside" our proper spheres of authority?

Incidentally, in my last comment I deliberately bracketed the question of whether Paul is even addressing same-sex marriage here. It's not absolutely clear that he is. But I set that question aside for the sake of asking the question: "Shouldn't that question be set aside for churches to answer amongst themselves?"

Kyle, re: legislation barring homosexual marriage possibly being an Establishment Clause violation ... many advocates of traditional marriage use religious definitions of sin in arguments against homosexual marriage. However, others oppose SSM for policy reasons based on, e.g., encouraging the raising of children by two opposite sex parents or concern over opening precedential floodgates for U-16 marriage, adult/U-16 marriage, or polygamy. The legislative history of any SSM ban would reflect this dual purpose and effect, and make a failure of the Lemon test very difficult.

I encourage you to read some Establishment Clause jurisprudence. If we are dealing with public displays, school prayer, or direct financial support of religious institutions, there might be something. Barring SSM is a moral and/or policy decision (depending on the person) that is sometimes grounded in religious belief, but does not include any overt religious reference or endorsement. If that constitutes Establishment, regulation of alcoholic beverages, tax exemptions for charitable giving, and surely polygamy laws will all be struck down. This is not the case.

Caleb, to answer your earlier question (and Jason's too), I don't see the difference or distinction between Christian and civil marriages being distinct enough. There is simply marriage, and some people have it done in a church with a minister. In my mind, that is the end of the distinction, unless I'm missing something. I'd favor the line being clearer.

As for inconsistency, I think it arises from many Christians in how they place value and importance on marriage morality while simultaneously ignoring it in other areas, as you and Jason have been pointing out. There is no clear line or ideology among most Christians about where and when government should be used to enforce Biblical doctrine. The rhetoric is largely inconsistent.

However, as I noted, there are inconsistencies from gay marriage advocates as well. They argue that consenting adults should be free to marry, but typically deny that freedom to polygamists. I know this was debated in depth by Jason, Ed and others, so I won't attempt to restate the arguments, but I believe it's an inconsistency from gay marriage advocates.

Ed, I look forward to more of your thoughts after reading this, your first post here. Thanks for eloquently stating many of the things I have been thinking as this debate continues to rage. Though I think the strongest argument against SSM is that it is a sin, I'm never sure what it is about gay marriage (gay sex) as distinguished from other sins such as lying, stealing, adultery, that causes such an uproar among those opposed to it.

Mark O wrote:

I agree that the romantic notion of marriage for love is relatively new, but disagree that it is a new idea that parents seek the best for their children.

Okay, but you're not disagreeing with me here, since I didn't say anything like the claim that it's a new idea that parents seek the best for their children.

I think it is primarily the very powerful (and perhaps very poor) that married for only for survival or financial considerations. Or for that matter the contention that most of those resulting marriages were loveless.

In most societies throughout most of recorded history, marriages were either polygamous or arranged, and not merely by the very rich or the very poor. It was part of a rigid caste system, whether in feudal Europe or the far east. That some type of love may have developed is not a surprise, nor does it undercut my point that the notion of marrying for romantic love is relatively new in human history.

Given the high divorce rates, child neglect and abuse, and other social indicators in the midst of unprecedented personal wealth, your assumption of improvement may be incorrect.

Well, would you rather go back to ancient Greece, for instance, where divorce was rare but wives were merely kept to make and raise babies, while the husbands had romantic affairs with other women (or men)? In an era where marriage was little more than a business arrangement - you marry me, I provide for you financially while you bear and raise my children and I have relationships with whomever else I want - divorce was indeed far more rare. Is that better? I can't think of any arrangement I would find more loathsome than that.

Josh wrote:

However, as I noted, there are inconsistencies from gay marriage advocates as well. They argue that consenting adults should be free to marry, but typically deny that freedom to polygamists. I know this was debated in depth by Jason, Ed and others, so I won't attempt to restate the arguments, but I believe it's an inconsistency from gay marriage advocates.

For the record, I believe I'm being consistent in this regard as I do think that the arguments for gay marriage apply equally well to polygamy (though I also agree with Jason that it would be far more difficult to implement) and that polygamy should be legalized as well, despite my personal distaste for it.

Josh, as Ed demonstrates, there need not be inconsistency among SSM advocates. But even if some are inconsistent, as long as I myself am inconsistent, my inconsistency is the only thing that need concern me.

But I'm still unclear (and I know you are too, so forgive me if I'm beating a dead horse) about how you would resolve the inconsistency among conservative Christians who oppose SSM while not opposing, say, civil divorce or (to borrow from my little Corinthian excursus) civil lawsuits. When you say that the "rhetoric" of such Christians is inconsistent, it makes it sound like you favor my original option (a). But when you ask for the line to be clearer between civil marriage and religious marriage, you lean towards (b) and (c).

Frankly, I see a lot of power in Jason's point that changes in the structure of civil marriage would not force changes in the structure of marriages performed by churches. Your concern in your very first comment seems to be that changes in the structure of civil marriage would promote things that some churches believe should not be promoted, but that raises the question of whether the job of churches is to create a civil society in their image by using means of state. As long as that question remains difficult to answer, why insist on blocking this particular policy proposal?

So, how about: The State defaults to "civil unions" between two adults. If a couple wants to be "married", they can do so in whatever church will have them.

SS couples get the benefits, Most religions can still say "well, they're not really married in the eyes of ..."

And yeah, I'm center-right, I go to a church that isn't likely to hold SSM ceremonies this century, but I really don't see how this whole thing is going to destroy the fabric of our society.

Maybe, it's because I have gay friends that have been in relationships longer than most of my hetero friends. I don't know, but stable people buy houses, settle into a community, and that's one of the foundations of our society. (IMO)

Do those that are most opposed to the idea of SSM actually know any SS couples? Or is it just Hollywood and media coverage? Most of those that I know are pretty, er, Normal.

And this is Texas...

"So, how about: The State defaults to "civil unions" between two adults. If a couple wants to be "married", they can do so in whatever church will have them."

I love this idea. Sadly, I doubt the religious right will support it. Instead they will say that gays are destroying marriage--and claim that we are being forced to all accept "gay-style civil unions" instead.

It's a great idea, but not one that could ever work.

How would the courts deal with polygamy and child custody? Let's say 50 people decide that they are jointly married to each other. The child's natural parents die. The other 48 continue to raise the child. Then the commune or sect breaks up. One of the remaining 48 grabs the child and takes off. The other 47 scatter to various states and and all file suit for custody.

Or what of divorce? One of the 50 wants a divorce and 40 of the remaining 49 contest it in court.

Maybe these examples are too far out, but I do think an argument can be made that polygamy on the whole doesn't lead to stable family situations and would clog the court system.

I could go through all the philosophical arguments for and against gay marriage. But that's been done over and over. So let's put it this way:

The state grants one group of people, heterosexuals such as myself, the right to tax breaks, right to a portion of a partner's estate upon death and other such marriage benefits. Whether or not one thinks the government should be in this business,it is in this business. The government, however, prevents another group of citizens, homosexuals, from participating in such protections under the law. While homosexuals could structure some contractural arrangements to deal with this, there is no guarantee that the government, through its laws and judges, will fully recognize it. After all, an Indiana Court of Appeals panel ruled against overturning the state's DOMA based on a rather legal-less argument: The procreation of children.

Now let's substitute straights and gays for whites and blacks. Whites are allowed certain protections and priviledges by the government while Blacks are not. Put into this context, we would all recognize it as plain and simple discrimination by the government. Why can't anyone see it this way with the gay marriage debate: Allowing homosexuals to obtain protections through state-sanctioned marriage and gays not to do the same is just plain discrimination.

Now either gays should be allowed those same protections. Or the government should be out of the business of extending those protections and privileges. I would rather see the latter: Government should only exist, in this case, to to protect life, liberty and property of the players involved, including protecting children from harm by their parents and providing a forum to settle divorce disputes without killing each other.

I know lawyers can dance around anything. But on plain sense, those against gay marriage can't dance around this.

Well that's quite simple. Race is a genetic, immutable characteristic. Homosexuality has not conclusively been placed in that category. Therefore the government has the power to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation. Whether they should still do so is another question, and the issue in this thread.

Also, for what it's worth, the Indiana appeals court did not uphold the state's DOMA law because they believed it protected children. They did so because of Indiana's constitutional provisions regarding standing and equal protection.

I disagree that 'race' is a genetic phenomenon. Certain correlates of race--external features and so forth--have genetic factors, but the salient features of race in a political and social context do not. They are, instead, socially contructed, and rather sloppily so. The question over what, exactly, 'White' means is ample evidence of this, as is the question of the status of those of mixed-'race' parentage.

Well I'm just saying from a legal standpoint, laws generally may not discriminate based on race absent a compelling state interest. But the state can generally discriminate on other grounds, such as sexual orientation, with a lesser standard. Those rules are based on the state's belief that race is genetic. That's not an endorsement or criticism of the law or rules, just a regurgitation of it.

If the government has the right to discriminate not just on the basis of homosexual conduct but based on homosexual orientation alone, then I favor a Constitutional amendment banning discrimination based on such orientation.

"Also, for what it's worth, the Indiana appeals court did not uphold the state's DOMA law because they believed it protected children. They did so because of Indiana's constitutional provisions regarding standing and equal protection."

And I never said that. I mentioned procreation. However, here's what the Court of Appeals said in the Morrison appeal, which you can find at http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/new/morrison-sadler.pdf:

"The Plaintiffs assert that there are three possible, but ultimately unreasonable, reasons for the legislative classification: to promote procreation and child-rearing by both natural parents, to promote the traditional family unit, and to promote the integrity of traditional marriage. The State agrees that these are the justifications for the differential treatment but, of course, claims that they are sufficiently rational justifications under the Collins test. We are satisfied that the Plaintiffs, as the ones challenging the statute, have failed to demonstrate that the marital procreation justification is manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary...

"The key question in our view is whether the recognition of same-sex marriage would promote all of the same state interests that opposite-sex marriage does, including the interest in marital procreation. If it would not, then limiting the institution of marriage to opposite-sex couples is rational and acceptable under Article 1, § 23 of the Indiana Constitution. The Plaintiffs also argue that the overall purpose behind all of Indiana’s Family Law Code is the protection of families...

"Finally, they claim, and we do not dispute, that large numbers of same-sex couples in this state are choosing to raise children together, either by adoption or taking advantage of assisted reproduction technologies. Based upon these facts, the essence of the Plaintiffs’ argument is that it contravenes the central purpose of the Indiana Family Law Code to deny marriage to same-sex couples because although many of them are raising families, they are precluded from the multiple benefits associated with marriage. Likewise, the Plaintiffs essentially contend, it actually would further the State’s interests in marriage and the strengthening of families to allow same-sex couples to raise families within the institution of marriage.

"This argument does not recognize the key difference between how most opposite-sex couples become parents, through sexual intercourse, and how all same-sex couples must become parents, through adoption or assisted reproduction.9 Becoming a parent by using “artificial� reproduction methods is frequently costly and time-consuming. Adopting children is much the same. Those persons wanting to have children by assisted reproduction or adoption are, by necessity, heavily invested, financially and emotionally, in those processes. Those processes also require a great deal of foresight and planning. “Natural� procreation, on the other hand, may occur only between opposite-sex couples and with no foresight or planning. All that is required is one instance of sexual intercourse with a man for a woman to become pregnant. What does the difference between “natural� reproduction on the one hand and assisted reproduction and adoption on the other mean for constitutional purposes? It means that it impacts the State of Indiana’s clear interest in seeing that children are raised in stable environments...

"It is possible, and indeed likely frequently happens, that a same-sex couple may raise a child or children that one or both members had earlier as a result of an opposite-sex relationship.

"What does the difference between “natural� reproduction on the one hand and assisted reproduction and adoption on the other mean for constitutional purposes? It means that it impacts the State of Indiana’s clear interest in seeing that children are raised in stable environments. Those persons who have invested the significant time, effort, and expense associated with assisted reproduction or adoption may be seen as very likely to be able to provide such an environment, with or without the “protections� of marriage, because of the high level of financial and emotional commitment exerted in conceiving or adopting a child or children in the first place.

"By contrast, procreation by “natural� reproduction may occur without any thought for the future. The State, first of all, may legitimately create the institution of opposite-sex marriage, and all the benefits accruing to it, in order to encourage male-female couples to procreate within the legitimacy and stability of a state-sanctioned relationship and to discourage unplanned, out-of-wedlock births resulting from “casual� intercourse.11 Second, even where an opposite-sex couple enters into a marriage with no intention of having children, “accidents� do happen, or persons often change their minds about wanting to have children. The institution of marriage not only encourages opposite-sex couples to form a relatively stable environment1 for the “natural� procreation of children in the first place, but it also encourages them to stay together and raise a child or children together if there is a “change in plans.� One of the State’s key interests in supporting opposite-sex marriage is not necessarily to encourage and promote “natural� procreation across the board and at expense of other forms of becoming parents, such as by adoption and assisted reproduction; rather, it encourages opposite-sex couples who, by definition, are the only type of couples that can reproduce on their own by engaging in sex with little or no contemplation of the consequences that might result, i.e. a child, to procreate responsibly."

Essentially the Appeals court came to their conclusion based on their view of what role the state has in procreation and the protection of children. I don't think, Joshua, that this is can be disputed in its essence.

Thank you, Jason K, for taking the time to give your definition of marriage and thoughtful reflections. I offered the question knowing that how one defines marriage will affect one's take on the issue of same sex marriage. I take my cue from the Pope's Theology of the Body.

To Caleb I would ask why he is speaking 'in the agora' if a Christian is not supposed to influence the public sphere? How can you cut yourself in two and table all your most deeply held beliefs? Bush has recently said as much in the presidential debates, and I agree. This is a big issue for First Things editor Richard John Neuhaus. The rerelease of his The Naked Public Square garnered great commentary. here.

My friend Tom has written:

"... what I find strange and absurd about Liberalism - this notion of everyone having the absolute right to live within their iron cage [allusion to Max Weber] - but never allowed to step out of the cage into the realm of pure objectivity. Rather - we can all supposedly flourish in a subjective world of our own making. Translation: It's okay for people to hold daft opinions (even religious convictions) in private - but when someone ventures out into the public realm to declare - Behold the Truth! - that's when the fireworks begin. Liberalism as Mock Humility. Surely Christian humility must be something other than this - Or am I mistaken? Is modern secularized liberal-democracy perhaps (as some believe) the final culmination of Christian humility? - Everyone has a place at the table - no coercion - separation of Church and State - No tyrannical orthodoxies. etc. etc. The orthodoxy that ends all orthodoxy. It brings me back to the question that really haunts me -- Does the Truth of the gospel need to be "translated" into modern-day terms of engagement that everyone can embrace (i.e. Liberalism as elimination of controversy) -- or should the gospel retain its aura of the unassailable mystery and uncanny authority? The Truth shakes us out of our complacency - It appears as the unsought imperative - the real treasure --the one we still have yet to reckon with. Because honestly - I could wish to have it both ways -- to make everyone happy and yet still preserve the controversy - If that didn't have to come down to having to choose between secularization and fanaticism - a.k.a. Openminded-yet-Tepid Devotion vs. Blind-but-Passionate Sectarianism. I cling to the Catholic Paradigm because it seems to represent a very enticing alternative to these - BUT HOW EXACTLY - The equilibrium point eludes me and many others - at least when we try to explain it to ourselves...and to others..." Link here.

I wanted to add another comment from Tom on the predicament we find ourselves in, in the modern Post-Christian world, before this thread comes to a close. I should have it up on our website sometime today, if interested (shameless plug):

The irresistible "progressive manifesto" reads as follows: "We of the present generation, in the absence of any unmistakable 'divine revelation' to the contrary, bestow upon ourselves the absolute right and duty to re-make the universe to our own liking...no matter what empirical facts stand in the way of our wishes." Okay - I sigh - so that brick wall in front of us is not really there?The other problem I have is that it's not as if the Republicans get it all right and the Democrats are always wrong or vice versa. Both parties (on different issues) exhibit a strange tendency to engage in "visionary delusions" as a result of this intense need for cosmic reparations. "We shall democratize the Middle East in the blink of an eye - give or take 20 years..." Oh Really? Is that because America alone is suited for such a task? Remember when Britain and France wanted to pacify these countries back in the 20's? Or how about... "We can re-invent the meaning of marriage and courtship in a single generation - thereby wiping out centuries of ensconced tradition - creating two new norms of what constitutes an ideal parenting situation..." Really? Well then while we're at it - how about tackling clinical depression with a little stem cell research. I could use some cheering up.

Somewhere above, Mr. Brayton wrote, "In point of fact, the notion of marriage based upon romantic love is actually a rather recent invention. Throughout most of human history and in most societies, marriage was either polygamous in nature or engaged in primarily for reasons of survival, financial considerations or accumulation of power and property. I think marriage based upon romantic love is a significant improvement over those 'traditional and time-tested' conceptions of marriage.

It is quite true that basing marriage on romantic love is a recent innovation; but it quite false to say it is an unqualified (or even "significant") improvement. Nothing can be more certain than that romantic love is a fleeting and capricious emotion. The idea that we might erect a structure of great endurance upon this foundation of sand would be laughable were it not so tragic.

In truth marriage in our civilization was based on the ideal of the Vow, on absolutely loyalty and commitment freely given. It it a serious thing indeed, not to be taken lightly. Note that this vow includes, perforce, the possibility of an additional vow of celebacy, for if one spouse's sexual capacity is destroyed by disease or injury ("in sickness and in health") the vow still holds.

All the trappings of our wedding traditions illustrate the importance of the vow: a pledge taken before family, community, State and God. It is a vow of almost astonishing recklessness, the wild freedom of free people; and it emphatically rebukes the ephemeral character of romantic love.

Erico, I'm aware that I don't have a fully settled understanding about how faith ought to inform my behavior in the public sphere. If that makes me inconsistent while I continue to speak in the agora, I ask for your patience: I'm working on sorting this out.

I'm pretty sure I do not support the kind of liberalism that requires "public reasoning" to proceed from secular premises. I have no problem with religious beliefs informing one's view of public policy, largely because I think it's inevitable that they will.

But what you seem to miss is that I've provisionally offered (following some of Paul's reasoning to the Corinthians) a theological, perhaps even biblical, reason for wondering whether Christians should seek to realize Christian ideals through the use of the state. I'm not offering a neo-liberal defense of separating church and state; I'm actually offering a churchified defense of that separation.

In that sense, I don't disagree that I should be allowed to give religious reasons for a particular policy in the public sphere. That's precisely what I've (haltingly, I admit) done here.

The way I see it, there are two distinct (and valid) reasons to oppose same sex marriage: the moral argument and the utilitarian argument.

From a moral perspective, a society has the right to define its own boundaries and proscribe (or at least refuse to validate) certain behaviors. Prostitution is illegal in most places despite the fact that proper precautions by practitioners could prevent the spread of disease. (No, I'm not comparing gays to prostitutes...but by the same token, what gives a person the right to say that being gay is OK, but being a prostitute is horribly immoral?)

The stronger argument, however, is the utilitarian one. Heterosexual marriage is granted special status because it is the best means for raising children and building a stable society. SSM proponents like to pooh-pooh this argument and ask whether hetero couples who do not intend either to bear or adopt children should be denied full marriage status. In fact, I would agree that such a no-children arrangement is on exactly the same plane as a same-sex marriage. The problem, of course, is that requiring children in every marriage would be impossible to enforce. Secondarily, couples who are childless (by chance or choice) can serve as models and mentors to couples who do have or will have children. (On a related note, I do not believe that same-sex couples should adopt children.)

Neither of the above arguments rely on adopting any particular religious code of ethics, but for some thoughts of mine on how Christians should view same-sex marriage, see this post of mine on Josh's old blog. (Surprise! The apostle Paul is mentioned!)

I forgot to add that I do think there are some aspects of "civil unions" that I do support as basic rights in our modern society. For instance, I think any non-married person should be able to designate another non-married person to have hospital visitation rights, authority to make medical decisions, etc.

Mr. Seymour, there is also the argument from political philosophy, which I sketched out here.

Excerpt:

I will be brief. The political philosophy of this country, conveniently articulated in our great public documents, teaches that we Americans, as a people, have committed ourselves to certain way of answering great public questions. We will not shirk them. We have no illusions about the historical fact that all societies face great public questions, and must finally answer them or cease being societies. Understanding this, we do not set ourselves against change qua change, but we do emphatically pledge ourselves to a way of changing � or not changing. This, mind you, is not an obsession with mere process. For the process in question is in fact the process of self-government. As Publius puts it in Federalist #71, "The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern."

The American political tradition, our political tradition, holds that, even if the State has the authority to transform the institution of marriage (which it did not create), it cannot undertake this innovation except through mechanisms which decisively reveal, for all to see, that a consensus of We the People (us the people for you grammarians) has developed and matured. To change the public institution of marriage is to legislate; it is a very profound act of legislation, answering publicly a very emotional and momentous public question. The question must be answered by We the People. It must go through legislative assemblies of the people's representatives, or we cannot continue to call ourselves a self-governing people. This innovation, if it happens, must not be an act of usurpation by a factional minority of judges, but of republican consensus. More: the consensus itself must not consist of a bare majority, or a mere plurality, but instead reflect the "deliberate sense of the community." Still more: even a solid majority, if it is achieved, must be able to pull along in acquiescence most of its opponents. We are not crude majoritarians, though we are republicans. When issues of enormous importance come before us, we debate them, in parliamentary assemblies comprised of men and women who have been entrusted by the people with legislative authority -- and, by that very republican principle of which Publius speaks, in parliamentary assemblies that are, of all the branches of government, closest to the people. That is how republics work. We do not stand by idly and let robed attorneys proclaim a judicial despotism. The courts will not be our Legislator if we are to remain a free people.

Wow, I never suspected that I would turn this thread into a St. Paul Seminar. But ...

Eric Seymour's post does indeed mention Paul by quoting Romans 1:32, "where he notes that the judgement of God is upon those who 'not only do [wicked things], but also approve of those who practice them.'"

Two responses: as with 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, place this verse within its larger context. The immediately following passage to Romans 1:32 continues:

Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgement on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. [2] You say, 'We know that God’s judgement on those who do such things is in accordance with truth.' [3] Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgement of God?

The conclusion of Paul's first three chapters in Romans is precisely that judgment must remain in the hands of God. So I don't see 1:32 as clear evidence that Christians should become the judges of the world ...

Or at least, to echo Paul in 1 Corinthians, it's not clear that Christians should become the judges of those "on the outside," or presume to use civil judges to coerce conformity to the kingdom of God. Among ourselves -- those who bear the name brother or sister -- we may judge, but even then with the graciousness born of knowing that we are always guilty of "doing the very same things" that we condemn in others.

But whether you agree or disagree with this reading of Paul, I still disagree with Eric's implicit conflation of what the United States approves with what Christians approve. I suspect that whether the United States approves "wicked things" has nothing to do with whether churches do.

I apologize to the generous hosts of this blog and its readers for hijacking this thread to air my speculations about biblical theology. But I feel strongly that as long as the Bible is hovering in the backgrounds of these discussions, we might as well have out with it. Respect for each other's positions at the least requires that we take one another's premises seriously. I take seriously those who derive their principles from faith and scriptural interpretation, which is why I've tried to enter the debates on this subject partly by addressing those premises.

While the evidence is far from conclusive about the origins of homosexual orientation, I'm not convinced that it can easily be described as mutable, either. (I do think some bi-sexuals can be motivated to prefer the opposite sex over same sex.)

If I were to kidnap one of the straight posters or commenters here and threaten to kill their entire family unless they changed their orientation, I'm not sure that would happen, even if they were given several months to make the change. To engage in homosexual relations to save their family -- maybe or probably.

I've known many gays who spent years in prayer to be changed or healed just because their churches labeled them as sinners, and sometimes even perverts. I've known gays who tried desperately to change in order to please their families, only to sink into deep depression.

For clarification: my last comment may have seemed to imply that my own premises are not religious. If I haven't been explicit about this yet, they are. But to reiterate what I said in reply to Erico, for me those premises do not clearly point to Eric's conclusions.

And, again for clarification, I'm deliberately keeping bracketed here the question of what Christians can or should believe about same-sex relationships, because I see that as a separate question from whether the state should enforce those beliefs. Too often, the two questions get confused, and the answers to one are taken as knock-down answers to the other. For clarity's sake, I'm trying as scrupulously as possible to keep them independent of each other for the purposes of discussion.

Mr. Cella raises an interesting point that provides yet another dividing line in this discussion - that of love being the reason for marriage.

Although I agree that a great many couples choose to marry because of deep romantic love, using romantic love as the only reason for marriage is inappropriate because 1) there is no requirement that you get married to be in love or to celebrate that love, so there needs to be a deeper reason for marrying; 2) romantic love should not be the primary reason for a Christian marriage - those reasons begin with the desire to replicate Jesus' relationship to the Church and the desire to accept children in a blessed and legitimate relationship. There are others, and romantic love is farther down the list.

This topic also underscores a Christian opposition to SSM - it's oxymoronic to have a same-sex Christian marriage. If the woman is supposed to fill the role of Christ and the man is supposed to fill the role of the Church - who does what and how does that work? The concept of Christian marriage, which has specific roles for both sexes and is rather regimented, does not contemplate SSM and a fortiori is not applicable to a same-sex relationship.

Eric Seymour wrote:

The stronger argument, however, is the utilitarian one. Heterosexual marriage is granted special status because it is the best means for raising children and building a stable society. SSM proponents like to pooh-pooh this argument and ask whether hetero couples who do not intend either to bear or adopt children should be denied full marriage status.

The utilitarian argument would be a strong one if one could provide some rational basis upon which to claim that allowing gays to marry would damage the utility of straight marriages. But if such a rational basis exists, I've not seen it offered. There is simply no reason to believe that allowing gays to marry will have any effect whatsoever on straight couples continuing to get married and raise children. Merely pointing out the utility of straight marriage is not an argument against gay marriage unless there is an established link to diminishing that utility.

From a moral perspective, a society has the right to define its own boundaries and proscribe (or at least refuse to validate) certain behaviors. Prostitution is illegal in most places despite the fact that proper precautions by practitioners could prevent the spread of disease. (No, I'm not comparing gays to prostitutes...but by the same token, what gives a person the right to say that being gay is OK, but being a prostitute is horribly immoral?)

I disagree with this premise entirely. The notion of inalienable rights clearly sets limits upon the ability of "society" - meaning the majority - to impose its moral judgements on others. And I, for one, would argue against prostitution on the basis of liberty as well.

Paul Cella wrote:

The American political tradition, our political tradition, holds that, even if the State has the authority to transform the institution of marriage (which it did not create), it cannot undertake this innovation except through mechanisms which decisively reveal, for all to see, that a consensus of We the People (us the people for you grammarians) has developed and matured. To change the public institution of marriage is to legislate; it is a very profound act of legislation, answering publicly a very emotional and momentous public question. The question must be answered by We the People. It must go through legislative assemblies of the people's representatives, or we cannot continue to call ourselves a self-governing people. This innovation, if it happens, must not be an act of usurpation by a factional minority of judges, but of republican consensus.

Would you have made the same argument against the courts overturning state miscegenation laws? That was also a dramatic change in the definition of marriage that had been a part of the law going back many centuries. Miscegenation laws were very much a part of our tradition, upheld by numerous courts as the will of the people clearly expressed through their republican government as well as through centuries of precedent. Yet they were clearly unjust and unconstitutional and the courts rightly overturned them, did they not?

And just to preempt a response, this is not a comparison between interracial marriage and gay marriage, per se; it's a comparison between the types of arguments made against judicial rulings that are comparable.

Petronius wrote:

Although I agree that a great many couples choose to marry because of deep romantic love, using romantic love as the only reason for marriage is inappropriate because 1) there is no requirement that you get married to be in love or to celebrate that love, so there needs to be a deeper reason for marrying; 2) romantic love should not be the primary reason for a Christian marriage - those reasons begin with the desire to replicate Jesus' relationship to the Church and the desire to accept children in a blessed and legitimate relationship. There are others, and romantic love is farther down the list.

First, there is no requirement to get married to do anything that people typically claim as the purpose of marriage. One can make a lifelong commitment without marriage, raise children without marriage, get companionship without marriage and so forth. Marriage is not a requirement for any of those things. Second, you are dealing only with the question of why Christians get married (indeed, only with a small subset of that group). Since I'm not a Christian, clearly the desire to replicate Christ's relationship with the church has nothing at all to do with why I would choose to get married. Nor can it properly be said that marriage itself has any basis in that idea, since marriage predates Christ by many centuries.

The point is that people get married for lots of different reasons. There is no single reason for marriage, nor should there be. It's up to each individual person to decide for themselves who, if anyone, they wish to spend their life with and why. And I still see no reason why my gay friends should not be granted the same legal status, privileges and protections that I am granted when their relationships are every bit as worthy as mine.

Would you have made the same argument against the courts overturning state miscegenation laws? That was also a dramatic change in the definition of marriage that had been a part of the law going back many centuries.

It was not a dramatic change at all; it was a very marginal change overturning a narrow piece of discrimination. It was not an attempted redefinition of marriage.

To the broader objection that takes the form of comparing homosexual liberation to civil rights for blacks, my answer, in the context of political philosophy, is that the Civil Rights Act was an immeasurably superior act of statesmanship and republican compromise than was the poorly-argued and ineffectual Brown decision. The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were the accomplishments of a self-governing people; Brown, Lawrence, the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court's SSM decision were flagrant usurpations of power -- in the strict definition, they were acts of tyranny.

Paul Cella wrote:

It was not a dramatic change at all; it was a very marginal change overturning a narrow piece of discrimination. It was not an attempted redefinition of marriage.

I disagree. There was a centuries long tradition overthrown by getting rid of miscegenation laws. It wasn't just some meaningless little law no one ever thought about, it was a major part of our laws for centuries. I can't imagine any coherent way you can describe one as monumental and the other as marginal and minute.

There was a centuries long tradition overthrown by getting rid of miscegenation laws. It wasn't just some meaningless little law no one ever thought about, it was a major part of our laws for centuries.

I never said it did not have tradition behind it; nor did I ever say it was meaningless. What I said was that it was marginal -- by which I mean that it did not touch on the supreme question of what marriage is. No one ever thought that because blacks and white would be free to marry one another, the very nature of marriage was changed irrevocably (if some lonely racist did think that, he was a fool). But to codify in law the idea that men can treat other men as women and women other women as men, and all this spectacular innovation forced into the category of matrimony, is a transformation so comprehensive as to boggle the mind.

I am not very familiar with the arguments of Loving so I hesitate to pronounce on it, but if it relied on the kind of reasoning evident in Lawrence and the Mass. decision -- that is, if it relied on th