The New Mexico Supreme Court is hearing the case of same-gender marriages today, to determine a standard for the state as a whole. Currently, seven counties have interpreted the law & state constitution as mandating same-gender licenses on the same grounds as bi-gender ones. Almost certainly, the court will rule in favor of their interpretation. Given the federal judgments, there is little else they can do. And given the prior decisions of states like New York, which legalized such marriages for their own citizens, there was no alternative for the federal Supreme Court but to treat those legally married within their own states equally.
If there is anything surprising in the matter, it is how slow some people & regions have been to understand what the question is, and what the issue is about. It is NOT about one’s views on marriage, even less about one’s views on sex. Nor is it an issue of “gay versus straight,” or of how one feels about homosexuality (if anything)–attracted, repelled or neither. Nor is about one’s religious views, no matter how passionately embraced. Religious freedom & freedom of thought, belief & expression guarantees you the right to believe, think & (up to a point) say whatever you choose.
Of course, these freedoms come at a price, a set of conditions, the most basic part of which is that everyone else has the same rights for themselves, and we can’t tell them what they or their religions must believe, think, or say. That’s the most basic part of our covenant, which protects us from our worst potential, the oppression of one group’s belief & thought on others. We say, each has the same freedom, and where they disagree, government must remain totally neutral, even when its agents & executives may have personal views & preferences. They may practice their beliefs as persons, but not as agents of the government.
Although often sloppily confused for one another, there are three quite distinct aspects to the marriage question–language, law, & religious belief. Individuals, within the law, have the entire freedom to choose their own religious beliefs &, within limits, their own use of language. These “limits” are imposed by public safety (e.g., not falsely yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater to panic the crowd) & laws against forms of fraud & misrepresentation (where definable damages affect not just the individuals, but also the integrity & trustworthiness of the marketplace).
The question of language use first came to popular consciousness over the distinction between “marriage” & “civil union.” It might have made sense to use the former for the religious sacrament & the latter for the civil record, had there not already been such wide use of the former for the latter–as in the very term “Marriage License.” The state has no business saying one definition of the sacrament is “marriage” but another isn’t, within the parameters of two partners acting with informed consent. Either all marriages were, from the state’s perspective, “civil unions,” or all were marriages.
Just as the state has no business sticking its nose in people’s religious views (or lack thereof), it has no business in the sexual area either, within the same limits. It cannot say, married couples must engage in one kind of sex or another to qualify. If two best buds, whether two old comrades or two “Boston Biddies,” want to make it a living partnership, whose business is it whether sexuality is involved? Whatever one’s own inclinations or views on sexual (as on religious) matters is not at issue.
The question of what you “believe” is really irrelevant, if you believe in the covenant that says you have the right to your belief–& so does your neighbor to his &/or hers. That’s all that’s at play here. Similarly, in the case of language, you may use terms like “marriage” any way you see fit in your personal use–but not in your civic duties, in that all share the responsibility to respect the equal rights others have to their own use. The law cannot discriminate, so its definition of “marriage” must accommodate the variety of views held by its citizens, not discriminating on a personal or religious basis.
It’s really that simple, and has nothing to do with how you’d answer the question of what your views on marriage are.