I’m in the midst of a freelance project editing and updating the questions for a new version of the NIV Quest Study Bible. I haven’t studied Leviticus this carefully since I was in seminary a decade ago. Of course Leviticus is where most religious conservatives find their justification for opposing same sex marriage (ssm)–specifically Leviticus 18:22.

Going through the Torah again has gotten me thinking about the current dialogue (if you can really use such a civil word to describe it) about same sex marriage. Gabe Lyons and David Kinnaman in their book unChristian, have documented the widespread perception that Christians are homophobic due in no small measure to their very vocal opposition to ssm. And the passage of Proposition 8 in California last month putting a halt to state recognized same sex unions (at least temporarily until the courts reassert themselves), has brought heavy criticism upon churches from the gay community. In fact, Barack Obama’s decision to have Rick Warren perform the invocation at his innauguration has triggered the wrath of gay leaders. (Although Warren says he has many gay friends, he is doctrinally opposed to ssm.)

The battle lines seem clear. Conservative Christians and the gay community are locked in a culture war, and the Christians have drawn a line in the sand–”Marriage is defined as one man and one woman. Period.”

Last week former evangelical pastor, Arkansas governer, and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. What ensued was a polite but strong conversation about ssm. (It still amazes me how many guests underestimate Jon Stewart’s intelligence and debate skills. The fact that he can pose such stinging questions and crack a winsome joke at the same time speaks to his talent. Bill Maher, take note.) In the end Huckabee’s arguments just fell flat against Stewart’s secular logic. Here’s the video:

The Daily Show clip reveals the dilemma facing religious conservatives (not just Christians). In a culture that does not see the Bible as authoritative, you’ve got to base advocacy of social legislation on something other than Scripture. So far the conservative Christians have not made a convincing case that permitting gay couples to marry would cause measurable harm to others. If they are going to continue to fight this battle (and that is a big “if”) they’re going to have to win over the minds of a very diverse American population with arguments outside Leviticus.

But that raises another question: Should conservative Christians fight to oppose ssm? Bob Hyatt, a pastor in Portland and a regular contributor to Out of Ur, wrote a very interesting post calling for a compromise on the issue. Drawing from his experience ministering in the Netherlands, he believes the state should get out of the “marriage business” altogether. He writes:

[The state] should recognize that as long as it uses that term and continues to privilege certain types of relationships over others this issue is going to divide us as a nation and is only going to become more and more contentious. We need to move towards the system used in many European countries, where the state issues nothing but civil unions to anyone who wants them, and those who desire it may seek a marriage from the church. When I pastored in the Netherlands, couples got a civil union certificate at the courthouse and then had a marriage ceremony at the church. This division largely negated the culture war aspect, and allowed those churches who objected to same sex marriage on biblical grounds not only to opt out, but to be able to continue to teach their biblical view of marriage unchallenged by the state.

Hyatt’s live-and-let-live approach will probably be seen as completely unacceptable to cultural crusaders, but might be appealing to those who fear the state may force churches to perform same sex marriages or risk losing their tax-exempt status. Interestingly, response to Hyatt’s blog post has been fairly positive with a number of pastors believing this may be the best solution for the church.

Here are three final thoughts that seem to be missing from most conversations about ssm that I’ve encountered:

1. I wonder if the energy and zeal around this issue for some conservative Christians is fueled by the realization that the church has lost its position as chaplain to the culture. In the Constantinian era, the church was very close to the state (even in officially secular states) and helped define morality for both government and society. It had a privileged position, set the agenda, and was widely respected. In the position of chaplain, the church’s definition of marriage was never questioned.

Now that we are, by most accounts, in a post-Constantinian era in which the church does not serve as a chaplain to the state, for the church to impose it’s definition of marriage provokes protests and accusations of intolerance and bigotry. By not budging on the ssm issue, are some conservatives actually trying to hold on to their chaplaincy dream for the church? Will the war over ssm prove to be the Constantinian church’s Waterloo?

2. A Christian friend of mine who teaches at a law school has traced the current debate about ssm back to the widespread acceptance of no-fault divorce in the 1970s. The precedents set in those cases laid the legal foundations for the redefinition of marriage we are now witnessing. (I don’t have the time or legal expertise to recount his entire lecture, but I assure you it was brilliant.) And even though divorce is strongly opposed in the Bible, conservative Christians did not rise up in opposition to those laws thirty years ago. The argument could be made that as a result of their silence they are now reaping what they’ve sown. Which brings me to the final point.

3. Strong opponents to ssm often say they are seeking to protect the “sanctity of marriage.” It seems like a watertight claim. After all, who wants to be against the holiness of marriage? But statistics reveal that divorce rates among “born-again” Christians may be just as high, and in some states higher, than divorce rates among the population as a whole. If Christians want to defend the sanctity of marriage we might do well to get our own house in order first. After all, if many Christians don’t believe in the sanctity of marriage, how can we fairly expect others to?