The place to begin in answering this question is looking at the difference between race and sexual orientation. There is no question of right and wrong when it comes to whether a person's race. There is no behavior which is based on a person's skin color. While others in society might respond to the color of a person's skin in ways that lead to shared experiences by people of one race or another, the basic difference of race is simply one of appearance. Everything beyond that, such as opposition to interracial marriage, is simply the result of our society's inability to understand that.

Where sexual orientation differs is that there is a behavior involved, and behaviors can involve questions of right and wrong. Most people that I have spoken with who oppose gay marriage do so not because they think people who are attracted to members of the same sex are somehow inherently evil or subhuman. The objection comes when that attraction is acted upon. Our belief is that sexual intimacy is a beautiful gift, but that it is to be experienced only within a marriage between a man and a woman.

Those who try to draw a parallel between interracial marriage and gay marriage have to ask themselves, if a person was blind, would they know if they were making love to a member of another race without being told? Obviously, the answer is no. On the other hand, a blind person would easily know if they were making love to a man or a woman. That's the distinction between the surface difference of race and the behavioral difference of sexual orientation.

With a distinction drawn between the nature of race and the nature of sexual orientation, however, the question becomes, "What makes homosexual behavior a question of right and wrong?"

The common expression of this question is something to the effect of, "What gives you the right to tell people how to behave in their own bedrooms? If you don't want to have sex with a member of the same sex, then don't, but don't tell others that they can't."

There are three flaws with this response, though, each dealing with the way we view right and wrong.

The first is that it reduces right and wrong to matters of opinion that vary from person to person, as though what's wrong for me might be right for you and vice versa. Ask yourself if that would work with matters that we all agree are wrong. Consider the slaveowners in the pre-Civil War South. If they said, "If you don't want to own slaves, then don't, but don't tell me I can't," would that have been a convincing argument? No, because the abolitionists believed that slavery was wrong, regardless of who practiced it. The same is true of apartheid in South Africa. The world condemned and ostracized South Africa because apartheid was wrong, not because it wasn't their personal opinion.

The second is that it reduces right and wrong to matters of personal preference, as though saying that something is wrong is simply saying I don't want to do. Part and parcel of the Christian life, however, is recognizing the things in our life that we do want to do but we know are wrong as well as the things we don't want to do but we know are right. Have you ever heard a juicy tidbit about a co-worker or a neighbor, and every fiber of your being was dying to tell people? Have you ever gotten cut off on the road and the thing you wanted most of all was to follow the driver home and give them a piece of your mind? We all face situations like this where it would feel so good, in the moment at least, to say or do something, but we know that it's wrong, so we restrain ourselves. Similarly, imagine a cold and rainy day, and somebody comes knocking on your door to say that their car is stuck in the mud and they need help to push it out. Nobody gets out of bed saying, "You know, the one thing I really want to do today is to stand in in the rain in ankle deep mud getting more mud sprayed all over me." But we recognize that it is the right thing to do, so if we are able, we do it.

This is similar to the third flaw that says that people who say that something is wrong are the ones deciding what is and isn't wrong. That's no more true than saying that the weatherman who says it will rain is the one deciding whether or not the rain will fall. If that were the case, then the second point I made would never happen because we could then define right and wrong based on what we want right and wrong to be. That's not the case, though. We all have our sources where we get our ideas about what is right and wrong. Where sexual behavior is concerned, some people draw upon their understanding of biology and nature. Some draw upon what they historically see in society and culture. Some draw upon what they understand their faith to teach. We are trying, though, to discern right and wrong based on the sources we consider authoritative. We don't get to be the authoritative sources ourselves.

There is one other argument that is directed toward people whose opposition to gay marriage is based on the teachings of their faith. It's an argument that says, "If I don't share your faith, I shouldn't be bound by laws that are in any way drawn from it," and says that this would be a theocracy. However, you would've been hard-pressed to make that case when the issue was slavery. Many of those who opposed slavery did so because their faith taught them that all people, no matter what race, were children of God and that enslaving some because of the color of their skin was a sin. A hundred years later, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., drew freely upon his faith in arguing the case for civil rights. In neither case did our government evolve into a theocracy.

Some would say that this line of thinking would lead to a tyranny where we feel free to write every jot and tittle of what we believe would go into legislation. That's not the case, though, because not every issue of right and wrong belongs in legislation. Adultery is wrong, but apart from making it a factor in the settlement of a divorce, nobody is advocating making it against the law. Gossip is wrong, but it doesn't become a matter of law until it becomes slander. We make these judgments every day as to which aspects of our moral code rise to the level of being "legislation worthy", for lack of a better term, and which are to be left up to individuals to follow as they wish and to persuade one another as best they can.

Even so, the laws banning gay marriage do not ban homosexual behavior. Laws banning homosexual behavior were overturned by the courts completely separate from any consideration of gay marriage. Any behavior that was legal before the ban is still legal. Any behavior that was illegal before is still illegal. Although I know that there are some who want to see the law ban homosexual behavior, I've never spoken with anybody who feels that way. I'll let others with more legal training decide if the laws that were overturned were unconstitutional, but I do think it's right for them to be off the books. As long as the participants are consenting adults and there is no violence or injury involved, it's a matter for persuasion, not for law.

So how does all this affect the debate over gay marriage?

Marriage has historically been given a special place in the law because of the belief that marriages are good for society and that they need to be supported and protected. That's why, to use just one example, a husband cannot be compelled to testify against his wife, and vice versa. This special treatment didn't simply passively evolve on its own. It required active steps by legislators who had to propose legislation, pass it, and have it signed into law. It wasn't done because married people are somehow better than unmarried people, but simply because of society's belief in the relationship at the heart of the institution of marriage.

Consequently, to extend that special place in the law to gay couples would be to actively affirm and give society's stamp of approval to gay relationships, and for people who believe that sexual behavior between two members of the same sex is wrong, that approval is not possible. While it's absolutely true that there is infinitely more to marriage than sex, it's also true that society understands sex to be an integral part of that relationship unless circumstances such as poor health or geographic separation make it impossible. Ask yourself what would be your response to somebody who says, "Yes, I'm getting married, but my wife and I aren't planning on ever having sex." That's why the first intercourse between a husband and wife has historically been called "consummating the marriage". It was the act the signified the final completion of the couple's union.

If sex is an integral part of a heterosexual marriage, though, it defies logic to assume it would be any less integral in gay marriage, and that's where the opposition comes in. If a person believes that homosexual behavior is wrong, how can they support giving that societal stamp of approval to a relationship in which that behavior would be an integral part?