The Massachusetts decision … a correct one

Spectrum, by Rev. Howard Bess

The Massachusetts Supreme Court on a 4 to 3 decision has decided that refusing to allow same sex couples to marry is a violation of the Massachusetts State Constitution. They were absolutely correct in their decision.

The fury of the arguments across the nation is not unexpected. The time for reasonable discussion has arrived, and the parameters of the discussion need to be set.

First, this is not a religious matter. It is a civil matter. To argue from the perspective of a particular religion is out of bounds. It is the state that issues marriage licenses and rightfully sets rules governing marriage and family behavior. A husband cannot physically abuse a wife. Parents cannot abuse nor neglect their children. It is the state that grants divorces. A divorced husband or wife must pay child support. A court can issue a restraining order that keeps an irresponsible husband from contact with his wife or former wife and his children.

The state issues marriage licenses to couples for whom some clergy refuse a ceremony of blessing. The State recognizes marriages that are legalized by judges or even a personal friend. The state sets rules of inheritance and grants certain rights and privileges to people who are married. When state and federal legislators set rules governing marriage, they do not check with local clergy and church boards to seek their permission. It is the business of the state to insure an orderly society. That is what marriage in the sight of government is all about.

Can some-sex couples be a part of an orderly society? Same-sex couples have been living together for a long time. How long? I do not know. In my book, "Pastor, I Am Gay," I state a reality. "The most highly developed skill of a gay person is hiding." No one has any accurate statistics about gay couples because the phenomenon of the same-sex couple living in a committed relationship is so well hidden.

Without any doubt, there are hundreds of same-sex couples living here in the Valley. They live quietly. They live in committed relationships. Many have been living together for many years. They hide very well. Some are raising children. Not a few are home schooling their children in order to keep a very low profile.

In increasing numbers, our neighbors, who are same-sex couples, are asking the state to recognize the reality of their relationship. They want to be a part of an orderly society. They want the state to grant them the same privileges and benefits that are enjoyed by opposite sex couples. Religions by definition are discriminatory. American governmental bodies do not have the same option. In a free nation, we hold governments to a higher level of responsibility than we do religious bodies.

What are the objections? Let us look at some of them.,

The majority of American people are opposed to same-sex marriages.. In our American system, the Constitution trumps the majority. In America we do not allow the tyranny of the majority. Minority rights are cherished. We are a nation of law, not of popular opinion. There are some things that are not subject to majority vote, beginning with the protections and privileges guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. This is Civics 101.

Same-sex marriages are immoral. Government does make that judgment. In fact, in a constitutional democracy the issue is not what is moral, but what is legal. We are willing to leave issues of morality to individuals and religious bodies. In arguing what should be legal, religious people enter the arguments from the perspective of their own morals. That is appropriate and is welcome. However, when the discussions are concluded and laws are enacted, we do not ask what is moral but what is legal Recognition of same-sex marriages will destroy traditional marriage. Marriage structure is ever changing. In the culture of the Old Testament, polygamy was the norm. In the culture of the New Testament, wives were property and had no rights apart from her owner/husband. Today's understanding of marriage as a partnership of two free people is very new. What tradition is being threatened and defended so vigorously? The real threats to standard marriages of today are affairs, physical abuse, and easy divorce.

But the Bible says … The Bible as a rule book is not very reliable. The last time I checked, when I asked about governmental systems, the Bible had no answer except absolute monarchy. The last time I checked, when I asked about slavery, the Bible approved slavery with the advice that slaves should obey their masters. The last time I checked, when I asked about women's rights, the Bible told me that women had none and that if they wanted to know something, they were to ask their husbands in the privacy of their homes. If I were a gay person, seeking permission to marry, I would not ask the Bible a question about monogamous, committed same-sex relation. It is a subject that is never addressed. If I were a gay person, I would go to a court of law that has a tradition of preserving rights.

That is what gay people did in Massachusetts. They went to a court of law and asked, not for permission, but for the right of marriage. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts got it right.

The Rev. Howard H. Bess is the pastor of Church of the Covenant, an American Baptist Church in Palmer. He is the author of a book entitled "Pastor, I Am Gay."