I don’t know what to call it—gay marriage and civil union are a couple names for it—but the gay and lesbian community is asking for civil rights that are granted to heterosexuals. The stakes are high—civil rights of American citizens, freedom of religion, and the separation of church and state.

The purpose of this article is not to discuss the morals of same-sex relationships; it is to discuss the civil rights of people. There is an unavoidable tension in the very idea of a Christian nation: "One nation under God"—so to speak. This tension between Christian ideals and civil law was well understood by the founding fathers of the United States. The early colonists were largely Protestant reformers. These pious pilgrims stood in stark contrast to the deist philosophers who created the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The separation of church and state guaranteed that religion would not dictate civil law. The message was clear: Neither the president nor the Congress needed the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury to make decisions for them. They also recognized the desperate need to allow citizens the right to free religious expression. Freedom of religion meant (means) that no one could be oppressed for their religious ideals or practices. America does not have a state religion. Each person can worship—or not worship—as they see fit.

But something important is often missed. Freedom of religion also means that no religious group can oppress other citizens because of conflicting ideals. This is why teachers cannot lead students in prayer in a public classroom; it is why creation is not taught in public schools. To allow a brand of religion, however mainstream, to control what is taught and practiced by all students in America is a violation of free religion.

It baffles me why certain Christian groups lobby so virulently for prayer and creation reforms in public schools when this undermines the very freedom of religion they are trying to protect. This whole discussion of free religion and separation of church and state is central to the issue of gay and lesbian marriage. To base the civil rights of all American citizen’s on the ideals of Christian morality undermines the freedom of that same Christianity. It sets a precedent for legislating the morality of one brand of religion, and one interpretation of that one religion over the diverse background of America.

When the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld the rights of gay and lesbian couples to state-sanctioned marriage, it protected not only the civil rights of the commonwealth’s gay and lesbian community, but also the longstanding precedent for the freedom of religious expression and the all-important principle of separation of church and state. Regardless of which chromosome someone is attracted to, each person is guaranteed certain rights under the Constitution.

Now for another pair of related questions that loom before us. Why is gay marriage a civil right? Why is it important for government to recognize same-sex relationships as marriage?

Here are some real-life situations. Only immediate family members have the right to make medical decisions if their loved one is unable to make those decisions. A gay partner, under law, has no such rights. Even if they are most capable to make the decision, there is no precedent to allow a non-family member to make such a decision. Is there a unique distinction between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple that would make one more capable than the other of such a decision?

Are married couples offered tax breaks and incentives because they are a unit consisting of a man and a woman joined before God, or because the government recognizes the financial needs of families and their children? Is there a distinct quality that makes the civil rights of a heterosexual couple unique? Finally, can the civil government deny these rights to its citizens because of the interpretation of morals from one of its religions?

I have never been offered an argument against homosexuality that did not rely wholly upon the Bible. I am not trying to tear down the Bible or the presence of its teaching in our daily lives. I am writing this article because I am terribly aware of the slippery slope we put ourselves on when we try to unite religion and civil law. That is a job for God when he comes—not for you and me here on earth.

What is left for us is not to base law on our opinion of biblical interpretation, but to make laws that are just for the citizens of this country. If anyone of us was fighting for equal rights, we would ask nothing different. How can we give anything less?

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE