So, with widely diverging views on the issue of gay "marriage," me and my activist friend have reached three general points of compromise in the civil realm. When I speak of these imperfect compromises, I do so in my role as a citizen of this earthly kingdom, not in my capacity as a minister. These observations reflect my unavoidable engagement with these issues in the military context, and should be construed as such.
1) There is a shared humanity and dignity between advocates on both sides of this issue. This seems like common sense, but in an age of spiteful, sound byte rhetoric and adversarial "culture wars," this shared humanity and dignity if often a casualty in practice, even if upheld in theory. Traditionalists (including orthodox Protestants and Roman Catholics, but not limited to them) do not hate gay people, nor are they bigoted. Bible-believing Christians believe the lifestyle to be sinful; other traditionalists believe it to be a perversion of the natural order. All believe that marriage has a fixed definition that is not subject to the whims of an age. At the same time, many are friends to and family members with people of this sexual preference. They are not hateful. They (we) are called to and (in our own sin-tainted manner) love all unconditionally. The Westboro Baptists are non-Christian mutilators of the faith and are not representative of orthodox Christianity.
At the same time, gay marriage advocates do not pride themselves in being usurpers of language or perverters of the natural order. Many gay men and women genuinely believe that their sexual desire is a firmly-entrenched part of their biological makeup. As such, to critique their desire is to critique them as people (which I think is a result of the collapse of the philosophical distinction between a person's value and his/her function). They also see the pursuit of gay marriage as an equal application of the law, with marriage being regarded as a "right," much in the same vein as speech and bearing arms. Their legal grounding is typically the Loving Supreme Court decision affirming interracial marriage. This movement cannot be reduced to the half-naked, tambourine-clad masses often seen marching in DC, but includes a significant number of well-reasoned individuals who love our country.
2) Civil unions likely would have been an acceptable compromise for the vast majority of the country. The largest concern expressed by gay marriage advocates is the lack of economic liberty for gay couples. I think most Americans are outraged by excessive taxation, double taxation, or perverse forms of taxation. While I favor a bipartisan effort to drastically simplify the tax code, which would large reduce all exceptions, benefits and credits and simply tax a certain portion of everyone's income--the reality is that marriage is currently the gateway to a large number of tax benefits, and thus becomes an enviable goal for those who would like similar tax benefits. This is understandable.
The largest concern expressed by traditionalists is the preservation of a defined institution, which is by nature a compatible biological union that then becomes the platform for propagating a society through procreation. They (rightly) saw that for many gay lobbies, civil unions were a means to a greater end of acquiring the terminology and social standing of marriage. Thus, they opposed civil unions, not wanting to allow this disintegration of a vital civil institution. Hence the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in conjunction with these debates.
For both sides, civil unions would have appeased the majority. The economic argument would have been decisive for most people. As one who initially opposed civil unions, I regret to think that in preventing access to these economic benefits, I aided the cause of the more fervent minority of the gay lobby that wanted "gay marriage." With the economic argument neutralized, the quest for a politically-imposed orthodoxy on a new form of marriage would've likely lost momentum.
3) Free speech and economic liberty must be jealously guarded. With the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," many in the military began to bully traditional marriage advocates with briefs that often implied that one couldn't express their opinion on that matter without repercussions. Free speech was subsequently chilled. It was a bitter bit of irony, in that gay service members felt more free to speak of their sexual preference, but those who believe that it is not in accord with Scripture or nature felt silenced.
At the same time, following a decade long pattern in society at large, Christians and other traditionalists who objected to employing their services in a "gay marriage" have been subsequently persecuted and prosecuted through a system of "anti-discrimination" laws and kangaroo courts. They are forced to either compromise their conscience or be fined out of business and forced from the free market. Again, in another bitter bit of irony, a cause that largely employed the economic liberty argument is diminishing the economic liberty of another group.
My activist friend and I are agreed that free speech and economic liberty must be jealously guarded. He is concerned that businesses don't refuse to serve patrons simply because of their sexual orientation. A point of compromise here would be the distinction between refusing service to gays as people and refusing service to gays in order to avoid participation in the act of "gay marriage." No person qua person should be refused service, but a Christian baker shouldn't be compelled to bake a cake for a sexual orgy or psychic seance, nor should a gay baker be compelled to bake a cake for Christian evangelistic event.
Of course, it's almost impossible to engage this issue without offending people on both sides of the cultural divide, but it's still a worthy enterprise. A pluralistic society will only prevail in freedom and order if dissenting parties within the "city of man" can gather together and compromise. And as a lasting note, the now inevitable cause of gay "marriage" may harm the culture, but it will never harm the Church. The Gospel will remain undiminished unless compromised by heresy or made subservient to cultural causes. And as Christians now work to simply preserve religious liberties in the civil realm, they should also work to engage neighbors--including gays--with the Gospel.
