Can Religious Freedom and Gay Marriage Coexist?

A few weeks ago professor Robert P. George delivered a lecture at the Institute of Religion and Democracy’s 2014 Diane Knippers Memorial Lecture. Professor George’s lecture focused on the redefinition of marriage and its impact on religious freedom.  Essentially, George argues that religious freedom and same-sex marriage cannot coexist, because of the unquenchable egalitarianism of liberal secularism.  But is it the case that same-sex civil marriage cannot allow for religious freedom?

There are a few claims that I think need to be addressed before moving forward in this argument.  First, it’s not only liberals who are arguing for the legality of same-sex marriage.  Conservatives like Andrew Sullivan and Wendell Berry argue that same-sex marriage promotes virtue between the spouses, not just sexual romance.  If we are to be honest, there are strong conservative arguments for gay civil marriage benefiting society. Virtue, self-governance, and integration into society all are aspects that support a strong democracy like our own.

To this, George would respond by saying that while society can make the claim that this is marriage, historically, it has predominately been defined as the conjugal union between man and woman. Sure, it’s true that traditionally marriage has been defined by the conjugal union; however, Griswold v. Connecticut  (1965) grants citizens the right to privacy and ultimately the freedom to use contraception.  So, it can’t be truthfully claimed that same-sex marriage will alter society’s perspective on marriage, when freedom from the necessity to procreate has, arguably, “redefined” marriage.  Also, to be clear, natural law is not the sovereign law of the land. The Constitution is.

This brings us back to the original question of whether or not same-sex marriage can exist alongside religious freedom in the United States.  I would argue, yes!  It can and must if we are to maintain our liberal democracy.  Those in the Robert George camp might argue that same-sex marriage within the sphere of civil society can’t be contained, because it will always hunger for more equality.  This is a problem not only because we are dealing with a hypothetical situation but one that is properly dealt within the parameters of the Constitution. The Constitution not only protects the rights of minorities via the Fourteenth Amendment, it also protects religious freedom in the First Amendment.

Secondly, we are kidding ourselves if we are about to place Sullivan or Berry into the camp of “liberal secularists”. Overall, Berry is more concerned with the tyranny of the majority when addressing same-sex marriage:

“Categorical condemnation is the hatred of the mob. It makes cowards brave. And there is nothing more fearful than a religious mob, a mob overflowing with righteousness – as at the crucifixion and before and since. This can happen only after we have made a categorical refusal to kindness: to heretics, foreigners, enemies or any other group different from ourselves.”

Conservatives that support religious freedom alongside same-sex marriage see this as an issue of human flourishing. Might the liberal secularists take this farther into the realm of violating religious liberty? They might, but we conservatives will deal with it when we arrive there. And thanks be to God for a Constitution that defends our religious freedom.