The Same Sex Marriage Ruling Will Stand

This isn't a post about how I feel about same sex marriage. This is a post about what happens next.

The ruling by Federal Judge Vaughn Walker that declared a constitutional right to same sex marriage will be upheld by the US Supreme Court. James Taranto writes that the high court will split down ideological lines. 4-4. Justice Kennedy then becomes the swing vote and he has written majority opinions in favor of the rights of homosexuals. 5-4. The ruling stands.

It is being increasingly affirmed within our culture that the functions performed by government and public bodies are strictly secular in nature. Albert Mohler recognizes this when he reads Judge Walker's decision.

Beyond this, Judge Walker claimed to read the minds of California’s voters, arguing that the majority voted for Proposition 8 based on religious opposition to homosexuality, which he then rejected as an illegitimate state interest. In essence, this establishes secularism as the only acceptable basis for moral judgment on the part of voters.

So with same sex marriage legalized across the nation, the debate will become one of religious freedom. If the government adopts the notion that citizens only oppose same sex marriage due to bigotry and prejudice, the government then has a duty to act against such discrimination.

I have friends in "The Navigators," a Christian group that performs outreach on publicly-funded colleges and universities across America. This group (and other religious groups on campus) have been told that they cannot violate the college's anti-discrimination policies when establishing their own constitutions. Therefore, a Muslim can't be denied membership or leadership in a Christian group (and the opposite is true: Christians can join and become leaders in Muslim groups).

That also means that The Navigators (or any religious group) can't deny to anyone a membership or leadership role, even if that person violates the moral code and religious practices of that organization.

Thus, the question becomes whether churches will be allowed to continue to decide for themselves whether or not to perform same sex marriages. You may argue that, since such churches are privately-funded and sit on private property, they are allowed to act according to the will of their denomination.

However, if the government determines that a church's opposition to same sex marriage is discriminatory based on irrational or harmful thought, it has a duty to act. One small penalty would be to withdraw the tax-exempt status of churches and religious organizations in order to withdraw any public "support" for those entities.

I believe that the same sex marriage debate is over. I believe the next discussion is one of protecting free, private religious practice.