The Supreme Court in the state of California recently handed down a decision saying that a law which had been passed in 2004 prohibiting two people of the same gender from marrying each other is unconstitutional. Gay rights supporters are celebrating the ruling as a victory for equal rights. Opponents decried it as an assault on Christian values, saying that the court has gone against the will of the people and attempted to redefine traditional marriage.

The California Supreme Court has not "gone against the will of the people." Nor has it "attempted to redefine traditional marriage". The Supreme Court in California assessed the will of the people as it is expressed in the state constitution, which is exactly what it was intended to do. California Chief Justice Ron George said in the written opinion. "... limiting the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute,"

The Supreme Court's opinion is that the state constitution prohibits discrimination against any person based on their gender. It doesn't attempt to say what marriage is or isn't, it simply said that the state can not deny a person's right to marry based on the gender of either applicant. It doesn't redefine marriage, but says that the attempt to legally redefine marriage by those opposed to gay marriage is unconstitutional.

The interesting thing here is that the court didn't create any new right specific to homosexuals but simply reaffirmed that the state may not make laws which limit access to any institution based on the gender of the person attempting to access it. If the law allows one group of people a certain right, the constitution guarantees that right must be extended to all people.

If the majority of Californians thought that Buddhists should not be allowed to marry because Buddhism is contradictory to their idea of Christian values, the constitution would protect Buddhists' rights. This makes sense to everyone. The constitution doesn't have to affirm that Buddhists CAN marry only that the state cannot PREVENT marriage based on religious preference. Now the court has affirmed that the same thing is true about gender.

I said in a comment on another post that so far our American constitution has never been amended to take away a right based on gender or any other fundamental condition of existence. I pray regularly that it will remain that way.

Having said this, I still think it is important to examine the issue of gay marriage and try to find some common ground. The primary argument of those opposed to same sex marriage seems to be that allowing two people of the same gender to marry will diminish or damage traditional marriage. In addition, they assert that same sex unions will destroy the family.

Marriage is not a pie which must be divvied up among the people. No matter how many white people get married, we won't run out of marriage licenses for black people. No matter how many Muslims marry, there are no limits created for Christians. No condition within my marriage can affect any condition within my neighbor's marriage. Family values like love, honesty, fidelity and commitment are not exclusive to bi-gender relationships.

The quality of a relationship between two people is not dependant on their gender. Gay relationships are no more or less stable than straight ones. Extensive study of children raised by same sex partners, shows that they suffer no harm and that they have, statistically, no higher likelihood of identifying themselves as gay when they reach adulthood.

One argument against same sex marriage is that marriage is a spiritual prerogative and the state shouldn't tamper with it. Ultimately, I agree. The spiritual marriage is an agreement between three parties, two people and God. Each of our individual beliefs about God defines what that agreement is. As a society we have formalized that agreement somewhat and created religious ceremonies to mark it. The state cannot and should not define the spiritual marriage.

The state must, however, create rules to define the secular part of this agreement. These rules are marriage laws. They cover rights, responsibilities, child custody and support/property issues. The state licenses ministers to act as agents to solemnize these secular agreements. They can also be solemnized by a judge or other appointed agent of the state. This secular agreement has nothing to do with the spiritual marriage whatsoever.

If the minister says you are married in the eyes of the church, you are married in the eyes of the church. If the minister signs the document which spells out the legal terms of the marriage and it is appropriately filed with the county clerk, then you are married in the eyes of the state. The minister walks the thin line separating the church and state acting, in this situation, as an agent for both. The state should not mandate the terms of the spiritual marriage and the church should not mandate the terms of the legal one.

The California Supreme court did not change or threaten any individual's relationship with God by ruling that the rights of all people must be protected. It evaluated and affirmed constitutional protection of those rights, just as it was intended. In fact it seems to me that protecting and caring for one another is exactly what God wants us to do. "...Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me." Matthew 25:40