June 30, 2003 - What the Republican Party hopes will be the “cutting edge” issue for the 2004 elections is on the table. It isn’t Weapons of Mass Destruction or the incessant drip of blood in the desert. It isn’t economic dislocation or stubborn unemployment statistics. Ironically it was placed on the table by a 5-4 majority opinion written by supposedly reliably conservative Justice Sandra Day O’Connor striking down Texas’ sodomy statute while almost simultaneously the Canadian Supreme Court acting to recognize marriage between persons of the same sex.

The ink was scarcely dry on the landmark opinion when the Republican right trumpeted a proposed “family values” amendment to the Constitution of the United States banning same sex marriages in the United States. Senator Frist immediately signed the Republican Party whole heartedly onto the proposition saying that marriage is a sacrament and must be protected.

I agree with him. Marriage is a sacrament and its protection is important – but not to the government. A religious rite is the business of religion and protecting the sacrament is the business of religion – not government and certainly not that of the Constitution. The Churches are well positioned to define their sacraments the Congress and State Legislatures are not. Indeed the Constitution forbids government from doing so.

The right claims that the abolition of anti-sodomy statutes is a threat to traditional heterosexual marriage since homosexual couples can no longer be punished for their private and consensual conduct. Conservative columnist William Safire takes a different tack suggesting that “competition” with homosexual marriages may strengthen heterosexual unions. Frankly I don’t see validity in either position.

What Adam and Steve or Angela and Stephanie do in their homes across town or the nature of their commitment to each other has absolutely nothing to do with goes on behind my heterosexual bedroom door or anywhere else in our home. It certainly does not threaten the depth of commitment between us. Government tax policies treating single wage earners differently than married wage earners may deter marriage between couples of either sexual orientation and thus threaten the sacrament. Permitting public recognition of same sex unions certainly does not.

Homophobia has always puzzled me. I simply don’t understand it. I certainly am not made less secure in my sexuality by what others may do. My church is free to admit or exclude homosexual couples to the sacrament of marriage. It is not my government’s business.