Supreme Court and Same Sex Marriage

Once again we find ourselves facing a moral issue in which the Supreme Court refuses to get involved.  It is the issue of whether or not same-sex marriage should be legalized. And like other moral issues, we encounter the complexity of who should decide what is ethically and morally right or wrong, in this case, relative to sexual morality.  The questions to be considered are the following:

1.  Should secular entities such as the Court System legislate sexual morality?  This writer (yours truly) and preacher believes that it is not within the domain of secular entities to determine the correctness or incorrectness of sexual behavior.  If it were to take it upon itself to do so, it would have to end up endorsing the moral standards of some faith groups and totally deny the moral standards of other faith groups.

2.  Can the issues be resolved by allowing the faith community to legislate social morality?  In general, morality might be rooted in the belief system of the faith community, but then again, we encounter complexity in that each faith community has its own definition of what constitutes sexual morality.  Add to that, that within each individual community faith, there are factions that approach the issue of sexual morality in divergent ways.

3.  Are sexual morality and the attending elements such as marriage something to be determined by individuals?  While there is much to be said about the value of individual freedom relative to outlooks and perspectives on different issues, we run the risk of social chaos because every person, then, would be doing what is right in her/his own eyes.  We would then end up with an "amok" sexual morality. There would be no other standard than to "agree to disagree."

4.  Should sexual morality be based on "what the Bible says?"  In this country, this approach would be problematic because the Bible is the sacred book of the Judaeo-Christian tradition.  But then we run into the problem that other faith communities have their own sacred literature, and to impose the moral standards as set forth by one sacred book and ignore the standards of the other sacred texts, would amount to religious imperialism.  Some may want to make the age-old and naïve argument that this nation was "built on Christian principles."  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  This country was built on the triple pillar of genocide, slavery, and colonization.  These three forms of brutal inhumanity are not compatible with the claims of the Christian faith, and I highly doubt as to whether they are compatible with the claims of any other faith group.

5.  Should the issue of same-sex marriage (assuming that we are talking about civil legality and not the blessing of the faith community) be determined by the Federal government or by the states? I am personally biased in favor of a national consensus.  In this manner, people who are married by civil decree do not have to encounter the harassment of different standards every time they cross state lines, or relocate from one state to the other.

How then, should the issue of same-sex marriage be ultimately resolved?  I do not have a magical answer to that question.  I can only propose ongoing healthy dialogue leading to consensus. Tell us what you think about this. Your contribution is important and valuable.

Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona