Some commentators argue that same-sex marriage and religious liberty comprise a zero-sum game. Recognizing gay marriage (or prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination generally) will inevitably prevent some religious individuals and institutions from staying true to their faith. We can have equality for gays and lesbians or religious liberty, but not both.

We think such critics overstate the potential for conflicts, and understate society's ability to resolve them by adopting carefully crafted religious accommodations.

But our point today is a more fundamental one, namely, that critics fail to see that arguments for recognizing same-sex marriage and protecting religious liberty share a common foundation.


Just as it makes no sense to tell a gay person who has been living with his partner for 20 years to end his relationship, stop being gay and find a heterosexual mate, it makes no sense to tell a devout religious individual to set aside her convictions about homosexual conduct. Neither the gay person nor the religious individual can reasonably be asked to change who they are. Our laws should reflect reality in both circumstances.

Laws recognizing same-sex marriage strengthen, rather than weaken, the case for providing religious persons appropriate accommodations that protect their ability to practice their faith. By acknowledging the autonomy of gays who seek to formalize their relationships through marriage, we strengthen the argument for validating other self-defining decisions intrinsic to personal identity. It is in the nature of our legal system that by respecting one autonomy right, we reinforce respect for other autonomy rights.

There is yet another similarity between same-sex marriage and religious exercise. For religious liberty to be meaningful, courts must appreciate religious differences. The same law that poses no problem for a Protestant may substantially burden a Jew, a Catholic or a Native American.

The same argument applies to marriage rights. Courts must take sexual orientation into account if the right to marry is to be meaningful to gays and lesbians. Just as religious liberty is useless to an Orthodox Jew if it only protects his right to observe a Sunday Sabbath, the right to marry is an empty guarantee if it only protects a lesbian's right to marry a man.

We don't deny that conflicts between gay rights and religious exercise may arise. Religious accommodations will be necessary in some cases. Lines need to be drawn and competing interests balanced.

But there is more potential for alliances and compromise here than many realize. Ultimately, respect begets respect. That ought to be the foundation for a long-overdue conversation.