Leroy Huizenga skriver på FirstThings.com at argumenter mot homofile ekteskap, i samfunnsdebatten, egentlig ikke bør være fra Bibelen (i særlig grad). De vil ikke fungere, og de kan føre til at spørsmålet oppfattes som religiøst – noe det ikke er. Han siterer også noe Chicagos kardinal George skrev om dette nylig:
Cardinal George suggested on his blog, “It might be good to put aside any religious teaching and any state laws and start from scratch, from nature itself, when talking about marriage.” He then made the following points:
Marriage existed before Church and state. Therefore, “Neither Church nor state invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.”
Marriage concerns the physical complementarity of the sexes. “The sexual union of a man and woman is called the marital act because the two become physically one in a way that is impossible between two men or two women.”
Even though marriage precedes the state, the state has an interest in regulating marriage, which is a public institution, to the end of “assur[ing] stability in society and the proper protection and raising of the next generation of citizens.”
The Church is also interested in regulating marriage, “because Jesus raised the marital union to the level of symbolizing his own union with his Body.” For Catholics, at least, the harmony of reason and faith, of nature and grace, means that things that existed before Jesus Christ was ever conceived—water, bread, wine, marriage—can be raised to the level of a sacrament.
The Cardinal, then, claims that the State has a duty not to define marriage according to the passing fancies of the body politic at a given time but to protect marriage as a natural good preceding the State. The Church too has a double duty, as it is indebted not only to nature but also to revelation.
Because of the harmony of faith and reason, thoughtful Christians can speak of marriage in terms of both categories. …