The debate over same-sex marriage has recently been at the forefront of the nation’s courthouses and statehouses. Earlier this month, the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld earlier rulings that Proposition 8 – the amendment to ban gay marriage passed by California voters in 2008 – is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, the Maryland Senate is expected to pass a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, which the state House of Representatives passed Friday, Feb.17. On that same day, however, Gov. Chris Christie vetoed a similar bill for the state of New Jersey.
My point here is not to argue whether the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Maryland legislature or Gov. Christie are right or wrong. Nor am I going to comment on which of legalizing or banning same-sex marriage is the better idea, although I have my positions.
My purpose is much more limited in scope; namely, I want to address an undercutting argument against banning same-sex marriage. It goes something like this: Bans on same-sex marriage, such as Proposition 8, are unacceptable when they are justified on the grounds of religious belief. Those who advance this argument contend that moral considerations based on the Judeo-Christian heritage are off-limits in the debate. For one, it violates the all-important separation between church and state, they say.
Basis of decision-making
The separation between church and state — a concept which I maintain is grossly misunderstood — can be described as a break between public and private life, especially in moral matters. In other words, religious and, by extension, moral matters are to be solely relegated to one’s own home and personal decision making. They are neither to have any bearing upon how one’s next door neighbor is to act nor to inform the laws that civil government ought to legislate for the public.
Yet, if the moral resources from the private sphere cannot be used to guide morally significant decisions in the public sphere, then what moral resources will be used? After all, decisions cannot be made in a vacuum; something must serve as a basis to ground them.
In today’s political milieu, secularism serves as the predominant, if not the only, legitimate value system to guide public policy debates. Religious beliefs and other personal values may count, but only insofar as they overlap with secular values.
Secularism is attractive. With the diversity of religious views in America today, setting religious beliefs aside when it comes to public matters may be a viable way to ensure that all views are tolerated. In this sense, secularism appears to be a viable solution to resolve public disagreements. It advertises itself as a way to arrive at moral claims without making any potentially offending, antecedent moral assumptions.
Secularism not a solution
However, this conception of secularism is quite misleading.
One reason for this is that dismissing the moral claims of various religious beliefs and their moral claims is a moral claim. Even to start from values such as tolerance, equality or justice is to make a morally loaded presupposition because those values are not non-moral concepts.
Secularism is on the same plane as Christianity and any other religion in that they all consist of their own moral system, which serves to inform how one is to respond to various situations. Therefore, when it comes to resolving disagreements with public policy, one cannot simultaneously embrace secularism and dismiss Judeo-Christian values in the name of tolerance because the secular morality is also intolerant.
If anything, the current church-state, public-private break strips away many of the moral resources necessary to guide dialogue in the public square. Institutions established by religious traditions matter, for they have much to say about what a flourishing life entails. Christianity, for instance, has much to say about what “shalom” looks like, not just for individual matters or a marriage relationship, but for every aspect of this world. So along with being self-refuting, the secular approach to public policy is, by itself, insufficient to determine what is good or bad for public life.
Thinking in terms of Christian worldview
Now, what I’ve written above is not enough to determine whether same-sex marriage should or should not be legalized. However, I hope that I have given you some food for thought and more importantly, somewhat persuaded you that you do not need to leave your faith in the privacy of your home to think about the issue. We need to think in terms of worldview, and Christianity has much to offer. The recent comments by president Barry Corey and the Chimes staff about Biola’s new Center for Christian Thought say it all. May the Lord grant you the spirit of wisdom and revelation.
