Now the Debate Has Changed

Alabamians generally agree about the sanctity of marriage. In 2006 voters approved by an 81 percent margin a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. 

The amendment said, “Marriage is inherently a unique relationship,” which promotes “the stability and welfare of society and its children.” Same-sex unions were explicitly rejected.

That position is consistent with what Baptists understand the Bible teaches. The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message declares, “Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. It is God’s unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His Church and to provide for the man and the woman in marriage the framework for intimate companionship, the channel of sexual expression according to biblical standards and the means for procreation of the human race.” 

That widely shared social value was abruptly overturned when U.S. District Judge Callie Granade struck down Alabama’s 1998 law and 2006 constitutional amendment banning same-sex “marriage” in two separate rulings Jan. 23 and Jan. 26.

While the issue will not be decided ultimately until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on same-sex “marriage” later this year, dozens of same-sex couples rushed to county courthouses Feb. 9 to get marriage licenses. That day Alabama became the 37th state where same-sex “marriage” is now legal. 

This reversal in Alabama is part of a tidal wave sweeping across America that has toppled the generally held social values and replaced them with a series of court rulings. Two years ago 36 states had laws adopted by voters similar to Alabama’s ban on same-sex “marriages.” Now 37 states are forced by the courts to recognize same-sex “marriage.” 

Such enormous change in such a short period of time would be called a revolution if it had been done by the will of the people. But in this case it has been done by judicial decrees. 

 

Judicial revolution

 

In making their rulings various courts relied on the “due process” and “equal protection” clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The courts ruled that laws against same-sex “marriage” violated equal protection benefits afforded married couples and also denied due process to benefits afforded married couples but denied same-sex couples. 

Social observers are asking if this judicial revolution is beginning to change public opinion. Polls have consistently shown growing public support for same-sex “marriage.” But in October 2014, Pew Research reported a drop in public support from 54 percent in February of that year to 49 percent in October. 

Perhaps the closer the reality of same-sex “marriage” gets to where one lives, the more cautious people become. 

What is undeniable is that marriage as a religious institution predates current marriage laws. So deeply is the concept of marriage as a relationship of one man and one woman rooted in religious understandings that the court ruling may have little effect on what Alabamians believe and what they do related to same-sex “marriage.”

 

Religious liberty

 

If so the debate will change in the months and years ahead. Instead of debating due process and equal protection claims, the courts are likely to be filled with religious liberty cases. The courts will have to decide whether government can force people to act in ways that violate their religious beliefs. 

Consider the case of Aaron and Melissa Klein who owned a bakery in Gresham, Ore. Their refusal to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex couple based on their religious faith that holds that such unions are sinful cost them their business. Now the Kleins also face fines that could reach $150,000. 

An administrative law judge in Oregon ruled Feb. 2 the refusal was “unlawful discrimination” against a lesbian couple. 

Yet the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the famous Hobby Lobby case that closely held businesses like the Klein’s “mom and pop” bakery have religious liberty rights. Government cannot force individuals or businesses to violate their religiously based convictions without a “compelling” interest.

It should be noted that in the Hobby Lobby case the government argued that broad assertions of religious freedom were a threat to American workers. In other words the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing religious freedom was supposed to bow to some modern-day construction that has to be read into the Constitution.

Some argue that if a business makes its services available to the public, the business should have no concern about what someone does with the goods purchased. Such reasoning fails to recognize the deeply rooted moral convictions of business owners who want to serve the public in ways consistent with their religious faith. 

Pharmacists who do not want to give out abortion pills are accommodated in some places. Why shouldn’t bakers and photographers and florists and musicians be accommodated? 

Predictions that the new ruling would be an economic boom for Alabama because it would mean more weddings in the state may be premature. More likely the ruling will mean more lawsuits related to religious liberty rights of Christians who refuse involvement in same-sex unions. 

Even churches face challenges. Churches may not be able to make their facilities available to nonmembers for wedding services without having to allow same-sex “marriages.” Ministers may have to consider whom they will accept for premarital counseling. 

Some religious liberty authorities believe churches opposed to same-sex “marriage” are generally protected from lawsuits by what is called the “church autonomy doctrine.” That principle holds that government has no right to meddle with the internal affairs of a religious body. But where is the line about what is internal and what is ministry to the community? Can a church make an internal decision to allow its property to be used by nonmembers as a ministry to the community and still be able to refuse use by same-sex couples? 

Anytime the church moves toward the public square questions about its own religious liberty surface. In today’s climate those concerns often end up being argued in courts.

For the majority of Alabama Baptists the recent turn of events is a sad development. Ranting and raving against this darkness might make one feel better but it will not change the situation. Now the debate has changed. Now is the time to stand up for the religious liberty which our national Constitution promises to us all.