Questions about "same-sex marriage" made a strong appearance on this year's political stage. Fueled by controversy in Massachusetts and amidst rumors of a marriage amendment to the national Constitution, several states passed referendums giving marriage a legal definition excluding same-sex unions.
With state Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, pushing a marriage-defining constitutional amendment in Texas, I believe it is past time Texans took a careful look at the issue.
Let me preface my statements by saying I am a heterosexual native Texan, am active in my church, and consider myself an evangelical Christian. After that introduction, it may surprise you to hear that I oppose banning homosexual civil unions. It may surprise you even more to hear that I oppose such legislation because of my Christian convictions and moral concerns. Let me explain why.
While the word "marriage" gets used without distinction in this debate, it refers to two very different things: the religious or spiritual bond of marriage and state recognition of relationships for financial and legal purposes. Properly speaking, the state has neither the right nor the power to grant marriages in the religious sense. As a Christian, I believe marriage is performed by the church and by God, not granted by the state (I assume other religions have similar perspectives); the state merely recognizes the union of husband and wife and in no way creates or legitimizes their marriage.
The government only recognizes marriages for convenience in handling property (taxation, inheritance, etc.) and other situations when such recognition is expedient (visitation rights in hospitals, etc.).
This second meaning of "marriage" is a secular operation of the state and neither regulates nor reflects upon the religious bond of marriage. The church and its teachings should govern marriage in its religious sense, but "marriage" as recognized by the state is a legal practice and cannot be defined by religious institutions.
The U.S. government and the state of Texas provide religious liberty by remaining secular. We are free to worship if and how we want because the government does not exert political power over religious issues. To protect religious freedom, governmental recognition of marriage must remain entirely in the secular sphere of social life. Any state claim to regulate the religious act of marriage goes beyond political action and threatens the freedom of religion guaranteed by a disinterested, secular government. In this light, every state recognition of marriage amounts to a secular civil union. This does not denigrate the sanctity of marriage; rather, it affirms the religious importance of marriage by denying the state the right to own it.
A church's decision on whether it will bless same-sex unions can and should be carried out in the context of that church's traditions and teachings. The secular state, however, must remain blind to religious distinctions among its citizens.
If ensuring religious freedom means the state must be secular, then it must be indifferent to its citizens' religious beliefs, and it cannot base legal policy on religious teachings.
Every citizen of the state must be guaranteed the same rights granted to its other citizens. If the state finds it reasonable to grant legal rights and privileges to heterosexual citizens living in committed relationships, it cannot justly deny those same rights to homosexual citizens. (In Texas, a man and woman achieve a common-law marriage simply by living together and holding property in common. No ceremony or intent is required.)
Legislation banning homosexual civil unions is a deeply moral issue, but the question is not about sexual ethics: It is a question of discrimination.
From women's enfranchisement to the civil rights movement, the United States in the past century has consistently come down against discrimination and for equal treatment under the law.
The real moral issue at stake in banning civil unions is the state's unconscionable discrimination against a minority of its citizens. As an American, and especially as a Christian, I cannot support such discrimination. That position remains valid no matter what your convictions about the morality of homosexuality.
I hope that you will seriously consider this perspective while evaluating proposed "marriage" legislation.
And please remind your representatives that the greatness of our democracy is demonstrated when the majority makes every effort to defend the threatened rights of a minority.
Frederick Heard lives in Amarillo. He holds a degree in philosophy from Wheaton College in Illinois.