A Relationship by Any Other Name

Last week the California Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional state statutes that prohibit same-sex couple relationships from being called “marriages.” The decision basically says that the California state constitution provides equal protection for people, whatever their sexual orientation, and hence for couples, whatever their make-up. Granting the term “marriage” to opposite-sex couples, but not to same-sex couples, violates the equal protection clause, and risks second tier status to those couples, a result that cannot be tolerated without it being in the “compelling and necessary” interests of the state. Since the court could find no “compelling and necessary” reasons to prohibit same-sex relationships from being called “marriages,” it ruled the state laws unconstitutional.

I hope I didn’t bore or lose you in that summary...well, perhaps I hope I did bore you, because it might help make the point that the California ruling, however much bluster it generated from pundits and partisans, focused on just one piece of the gay marriage controversy: Can a state such as California, which grants extensive legal protections to so-called “domestic partnerships,” refuse same-sex couples a specific title to their relationship? Is it constitutional in the Golden State for one group to “marry,” while another group may only “partner”?

[If you're curious, a link to the court's opinion is below the prayer that concludes this piece. It's long and tedious, so I recommend that you stick to the first 12 pages, which comprise the opinion's summary.]

This week’s decision was about the name attached to the relationship between two persons united in a committed, covenantal relationship. It was not about whether gay marriage is constitutional.

Which suited most of the religious folk engaged on this issue just fine, because they don’t want to argue about a name or a constitution, anyway. They want to contend over whether gay marriage is “right,” “moral,” or “biblical.” Do you? I am genuinely curious; do you? Or better, how do you?

I thought I would write a piece dissecting the gay marriage issue from a spiritual/theological/biblical perspective – and I probably still will – but when I read the California court’s opinion summary, I was so taken by their avoidance of the issue people really care about, I decided to change course.

As a person of faith – if you believe yourself so to be – what do you think about gay marriage? Don’t tell us whether you think it’s lawful or constitutional or enforceable or practical; tell us, in a comment, how you address the “right or wrong,” “moral or immoral,” “biblical or unbiblical” questions. You may not know for sure; fine. Then tell us the issues that matter to you, the questions for which you wish you had better responses. Tell us the one question about gay marriage you would ask Jesus, since in the Gospels he says nothing about either the specific subject or the broader issue of homosexuality.

Using your comments as guidance, I will fashion a future Express piece on the subject of gay marriage, which, no doubt, will prompt other comments, and more Express pieces, which will produce more.... [Please remember that anonymous comments are truly that, anonymous, and are also valued here; remember also that you are free to post more than once – perhaps as a new thought, or in response to another’s entry.]

I don’t know how most of the people who read this blog think about gay marriage. Here’s my (and your) chance to find out, as well as your chance to foster dialogue. I await and anticipate your response.


Pray with me:
God, some subjects we deal with in society are really hard; some, like this one, sometimes seem impossible. Give us wisdom and discernment as we reflect, and kindness and self-control as we respond to each other. In the name of Jesus, Amen.

- - - - - - - - - - -

P.S. Here’s the link to the California Supreme Court ruling (you'll have to paste it into your browser's address window):
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF