Note: This was originally published December 29, 2003 in the Cincinnati Enquirer. Good to read it 10 years later and consider my own viewpoint and societal evolution toward the issue of gay marriage. I still like this piece and happy I am seeing some of the solutions rising from the legislative process.

MORALITY SHOULD BE A PERSONAL MATTER

My sister recently sent me an article regarding the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision declaring the prohibition of gay marriage unconstitutional. A lesbian, she definitely supported the decision, and expressed sincere joy to be living in a state where there is real support for gay rights.

I recently sent Sis my support for the decision based on my personal morality and common sense. My personal morality is not rigidly rooted in religion but is rather an individually developed set of guiding principles that help me decide between right and wrong. Although I have several religious tenets as foundations, I refuse to be controlled by any religious dogma or rely on anyone else to dictate my morality to me.

The issue of gay marriage is a difficult one, but one that should be confronted with thought and debate, not blind reliance on another’s creed or canon. Religion can, and should, play a part in the debate, but respect for others’ beliefs, teachings of philosophical scholars, and our own sensibilities of fundamental human fairness must be considered as well. In my opinion, the decision is proper, and sends the debate back to the legislature to craft a law that reflects our current, collective (societal) morality. The two sides will engage people and resources to fight the noble battle, but through the dialectic process of synthesis and the democratic process of debate, we will arrive at a practical solution that shows a fundamental respect for our fellow citizens, yet respects the religious convictions of many Americans.

The bottom line for me is that the decision promotes stability and commitment between two people by encouraging the development of laws recognizing their union and allowing them to receive some of the very real economic and social benefits attendant to this status. My morality is not offended by these rights, but it has been offended by many of the post-decision comments from both sides as they position themselves in the public forum. My hope is that through the legislative process, we will find the flaws in the two opposing arguments and arrive at a workable solution (perhaps following Vermont) or even a new universal moral truth.

God will be watching, but I believe he approves of the process and will favor the final outcome that should promote two core concepts of any relationship, including that between us and our democracy – stability and commitment.