Gay Marriage: Theologil and Moral Arguments - Markkula Center for Applied Ethics

The likelihood that the Supreme Court next June will announce s disvery of a nstutnal right to same-sex marriage rais an obv qutn for the Catholic Church: What do we do now?Two steps e to md. First, prs for strong legal protectns for dividuals and stutns nsciently unable to operate wh a legal regime that requir sweepg ncsns to the LGBT agenda. Send, give ser thought to the possibily that the Church should qu servg as the ernment’s agent legimatg firm cisns at the top levels of the Church are urgently need uldn’t be more obv. Consir a Washgton Post edorial trashg Alabama thori for ristg a Supreme Court orr on behalf of gay marriage that state. The urt told Alabama to get crackg even though the urt self remas months away om a nstutnal lg.“The [gay rights] movement is on the verge of a historic victory,” the Febary 11 edorial clared. “But that don’t mean activists and alli have succeed transformg the culture that for so long nied gay men and lbians equal treatment.”Transformg culture? Of urse. The Post edorial noted some steps to take. “Marriage equaly is jt one of many goals. State legislatur and feral lawmakers need to be nvced to enhance civil rights protectns for gay men and lbians—prohibg employment discrimatn, for example, or discrimatn bs transactns. In plac like Alabama, that will take a lot more effort.”One form ’s already taken n be seen not nservative Alabama but libertarian Oregon. There the Christian owners of a bakery were found guilty of vlatg  anti-discrimatn law by clg— 2013, before the state even regnized same-sex marriage—to supply a weddg ke for a lbian uple. Bakery owners Aaron and Melissa Kle ced relig nvictns as their reason.Acrdg to the Oregon Bure of Labor and Indtri, the Kles face f as high as $150,000. The actual amount will be cid March. A hundred and fifty thoand for a weddg ke? Is this the Post’s “a lot more effort”? Iron-clad legal protectn agast state ercn to fall le wh gay marriage is sperately need for dividuals like the Kles and stutns like the Catholic Church. It won’t be easy. Catholic News Agency (CNA) reports that the Ford and Arc Foundatns have given several ln dollars to the Amerin Civil Liberti Unn and other groups to vise ways of blockg the relig eedom argument for not operatg wh same-sex marriage. If relig groups want First Amendment protectns, they’ll have to fight.Urgently need, too, is nsiratn of whether the Church should stop registerg marriag for the state. Increasgly, be hard to see how the Church n ntue as ernment’s llaborator this matter once the Supreme Court mak fal that what the ernment means by marriage is opposed to what the Church means.Confn about the meang of marriage is already wispread. It’s the unrlyg issue the crisis of marriage that last fall’s Synod of Bishops on marriage should have nonted and didn’t. But the synod’s omissn is no reason for the Church to persist a relatnship wh ernment that epens the nfn.A two-step procre—e by the urthoe for a civil ceremony that satisfi the state, then e to church for a sacramental marriage—may sound cumbersome, but ’s an opportuny for techis on what marriage means. As secular Ameri heads down the same-sex path, the Church now mt go another, better way.