I do not consider myself naive, but it still surprises me, in my heart, that the United States of America continues to discriminate against lesbian and gay people and that so many of my fellow Americans are OK with that. In thinking about the issue of same-sex marriage again today, in light of the struggle for marriage equality in Maryland, Delaware, and elsewhere, and the Christian Right’s opposition to that struggle, I would like to make five quick points.

1) The term “marriage” as it is commonly used actually conflates two very different aspects of the conjugal relationship: the spiritual union of two people and the civil contract validated by the state. The political and legal struggle for marriage equality concerns only the latter.

2) Marriage as a spiritual union does not require state approval to exist. While it’s true that the Protestant tradition that has dominated in the U.S. gives the state a constitutive role in creating marriage, it is important to note that Catholicism and Judaism, as well as the American tradition of common-law marriage, have long viewed marriage as a relationship constituted through the promises two people make to each other, rather than by state authority. None of those three important marital traditions requires that marriages receive approval from religious or political elites to be valid.

3) When federal or state government singles out particular marriages for special discrimination, it violates the fundamental principle of legal equality — the commitment to treating all people equally before the law. Every model of democracy — whether liberal, republican, or some other kind — includes legal equality as a fundamental principle. Consequently, allowing legalized inequality to exist undermines the democratic character of a society.

4) The constitutional separation of church and state prohibits the government from establishing one religious definition of marriage as the law of the land. Because many religious denominations recognize same-sex marriage, state discrimination against those unions constitutes an infringement on religious freedom.

5) At the same time, the constitutional separation of church and state also means that the government cannot compel any particular religious organization to recognize same-sex couples as religiously married, if that goes against its doctrines. That too would violate religious freedom. So even if you personally believe that a religious marriage has to be between a man and a woman, you could still support legal equality when it comes to civil marriage.

While all this makes perfect, logical sense, people’s hearts are generally not moved by reason, but rather by compelling personal stories. So I would like to end by recommending that you listen to a very compelling story told by Del. Heather Mizeur on the floor of the Maryland House of Delegates. It moved my heart. Click here to listen to her floor speech (the video on the right) or read the transcript.