Religion a force in gay marriage debate
`Like incest, same-sex relationships have been viewed as immoral almost universally. No major world religion has ever extended `marriage' rights to same-sex couples."
That is an excerpt from a friend-of-the-court brief filed by religious groups and others about same-sex marriage, currently the subject of a case before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
In fairness, a second brief, whose drafters included Massachusetts' Catholic bishops and representatives of Baptist, Greek Orthodox, Nazarene, and evangelical groups, argues against gay marriage, while deliberately avoiding any condemnation of gay relations, said Rabbi Y.A. Korff, who joined the brief as an individual clergyman.
Religion is a key reference point for many in the gay marriage debate and both the language and concerns raised by believers underline the emotional tempest surrounding the argument. That contentiousness was underlined by the Catholic bishops' request that priests preach the church's stand against gay marriage last weekend, and the boos that drew from some quarters. The bishops' initiative sparked a reaction from clergy supporting gay marriage, who declared they had more than 350 clergy statewide on their side. And both camps are bracing for a brawl in the Legislature over a proposal to amend the state constitution to define marriage as heterosexual only.
Those who would cordon off marriage as a heterosexuals-only club and those who seek to fling open the marital doors to gay and lesbian couples are using familiar and novel arguments to sway the SJC and public opinion.
A brief supporting same-sex marriage was filed by a diverse band of allies: gay rights groups of Baptists, Catholics, Jews, and the United Church of Christ; the Unitarian Universalist Association; and self-described pagan groups. In part, these groups make the familiar argument that marriage would proffer gays a host of basic rights, from health care coverage to hospital visitation during illness, that either are denied or circumscribed now.
Meanwhile, a new book, "Love the Sin," by two academics from New York and California, constructs an admittedly radical defense of gay rights by analogizing sexual freedom to religious freedom. Loving the sinner is not enough, the authors argue; hating the sin, they say, is incompatible with the First Amendment.
"When it comes to religion, the principles of the First Amendment do not just protect religious identity; they are supposed to protect religious practice," the book says. Gays, the book argues, should have the same right of practice.
Traditionalists would object that there's a big difference. Practicing religion is a moral act, while Korff personally opposes gay sexual relations (his brief's even-toned language notwithstanding) because of Jewish scripture.
"Homosexuality is specifically prohibited in the Bible," he said.
And, Korff said, for Orthodox Jews such as himself, "We believe that the Torah is applicable to all times and all places."
By contrast, denominations such as the Unitarians "don't rely on the Scriptures in the same way some of the more conservative traditions do," said the Rev. Keith Kron, who works on gay issues for the church. Unitarians regard the Bible as "an amazing book," he said, "some of which you can use to get very good guidance as to how to live your life, some of which is only applicable to a certain people living at a certain time."
The brief supporting same-sex marriage centers on this split between believers. It says the state has no business using religion to disapprove of gay marriage, since religion has no consensus on the topic. (The case before the SJC deals with civil as opposed to religious marriage. A decision for the gay couples seeking the right to wed would not force churches with religious objections to marry gay couples, according to the state attorney general's office.)
In the end, where believers stand may boil down to how they answer a simple question: Is homosexuality a sin? A recent Gallup poll offered some insight. Asked whether homosexual behavior was morally acceptable, a majority of Catholics (53 percent) said yes, while only minorities of both Protestants (38 percent) and Americans overall (44 percent) agreed.
One thing remains undebatable: This is not just some arcane theology debate. When he voted with the majority of the US Supreme Court to uphold Georgia's sodomy ban in 1986, then-Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote, "Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judaeo-Christian moral and ethical standards." Burger discomforted some critics who thought he'd taken a chisel to the wall between church and state. But his comments proved that what religious people think about homosexuality, or what judges think they think, matters.
Rich Barlow may be reached at rbarlow.81@alum.dartmouth.org.
