I recently talked to Marc Stern, the general counsel of the American Jewish Congress, for a Weekly Standard article about the potential religious liberty threats that appeared this May. “What do you say to people who claim this is only the hysteria of the religious right?” I asked him. “There’s a real issue,” he said instantly. “Boston Catholic Charities shows that. The parachurch institutions are very much at risk and may be put out of business because of the licensing issues or the adoption stuff. It’s very unclear. None of us [nonprofits] can function without tax exemption. As a practical matter, any large charity needs that real estate tax exemption.” He argues for a “middle way” that protects the rights of gay people and also religious groups who oppose homosexuality. He pauses thoughtfully, “You look around the world: Even the right to preach is in doubt. Fundamentally, speech is still safe in the U.S. Beyond speech, nothing is safe.”

WHAT WE CAN DO

What should people of faith do? The Senate votes June 6 on a Marriage Protection Amendment that defines marriage as the union of husband and wife: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.” The House is expected to vote on a marriage amendment in July. Go to www.rcm.org and send an e-mail to your senators and representative letting them know Americans care very much about this issue.

We will come out of these two votes with one of two major possible stories: If Americans do not speak out, the mainstream media will crow that “Opposition to Gay Marriages Fades.” If this is the headline, then judges will be emboldened to impose gay “marriage” in your state without your consent. The alternative story, “Surge of Support for Marriage Amendment,” will convey to both political and judicial elites that it is politically dangerous to mess with marriage.

As we work for a constitutional amendment, there is also an urgent immediate need for “conscience” legislation (similar to that which exists on abortion): If state or local governments take federal funds, they may not use them to discriminate against any organization or individual who refuses for reasons of conscience to assist in gay “marriage” or adoption. This kind conscience legislation would not offer the broad protection of a constitutional amendment on marriage. But unlike a constitutional amendment, conscience protection would require only fifty-one votes in the Senate, rather than a two-thirds majority.

What is at stake in the marriage debate? Among other things, it is now clear: the capacity of Christian and other religious organizations to pass on a faithful vision of marriage to our own children, through religious institutions. Religious liberty is at risk. How can we fail to act?

Editor's Note: This article first appeared in the June 2006 issue of BreakPoint WorldView magazine.