Over the past couple of months I have engaged in the gay marriage debate several times with a handful of people. I have drawn the same conclusion every time, this is not a debate about gay rights, this is a debate about religious freedom.
As the marriages of gays and lesbians are legalized around the world, those who are free to practice religion lose aspects of that precious freedom. Sexual freedom trumps religious freedom, this is a pattern that has happened and will continue to happen as long as states and countries ignore that marriage is between a man and a woman.
A perfect illustration of my argument took place in March of 2006 in the liberal state of Massachusetts. Catholic Charities of Boston began in 1903 as an adoption agency primarily serving Catholic children left by parents who died or abandoned them. For more than 100 years this respectful organization placed children in homes with goodly parents who would watch over and nurture them as they grew. Catholic Charities was the most successful private adoption agency in the state, handling more adoptions than any other. They were a beacon of hope to displaced children, a group of individuals who worked unselfishly for the advancement of the helpless.
In 2006 Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to shut down their adoption department and get out of the business of finding homes for children. This decision was made after the organization was given an ultimatum from the state government: Comply with state law and adopt to gay couples, or close your doors. The Catholic church condemns homosexuality, it is a practise that is against the Catholic religion, for this they morally could not place a child in to the home of a gay or lesbian couple. The governor at the time, Mitt Romney, attempted to pass legislation that would have allowed religious organizations an exemption from the adopting to gays law, but was shut down by his state legislature. Thus, rather than defy their religious beliefs, Catholic Charities of Boston voluntarily stopped their adoptive services.
I could go on with more examples.
My religion is very dear to me, and my religious freedom is one that I take very seriously. That may not mean anything to the State of Massachusetts or the Supreme Court of California, but to me it means everything. What will happen in the day that my church is sued and crippled because gay marriages are against our beliefs? How will religious organizations cope with laws that equalize sexual orientation with race?
We must protect traditional marriage and define it as a union between man and woman. We must ensure that nothing ever trumps religious freedom.