In the present struggle to preserve the culture of Guam against the legalization of same-sex unions, the claim is made that the separation of church and state means that the state should be neutral regarding moral issues. One advocate of bill 185 said that he just wanted to escape the “clutches” of the Catholic Church. Does he have a point? In opposing bill 185, is the Catholic Church overstepping its bounds by forcing its religious doctrines down other people’s throats? Is the proper stance of the state to be neutral when it comes to controversial moral issues?

To answer these questions, a clear distinction needs to be made between religion and ethics. They are not the same. The state ought to be neutral when it comes to religious questions, but it cannot be neutral when it comes to ethical issues. The reason for the later is simple. The state has to promote the common good. Promoting the common good is an ethical issue. Therefore, the state cannot be neutral when it comes to an ethical issue that touches the common good of society.

The well-being of families goes to the heart of the common good. Without healthy families, there is no future for a society. Healthy marriages are the source and protection of healthy families. Therefore, the state is obligated to defend and promote the stability of marriage. It cannot be neutral in the face of attacks on marriage not just because it ought not to be neutral, but because neutrality itself is impossible for a simple reason. Law is a teacher. Either it will teach that marriage is already determined to be the union of a biological couple (i.e., a man and a woman) who unite themselves for life so that their love can be the reason that others (i.e., their children) come to have life, or that marriage is the union of any two persons irrespective of their ability to put their love at the service of life (e.g., persons of the same sex). Either the legislature of Guam will opt for the former understanding of marriage as already defined by our biology and defeat bill 185, or it will adopt bill 185 and redefine marriage as a malleable institution that can be for whatever purpose the two domesticating parties choose to put it. But whatever stance the senators adopt they will not be neutral. They cannot be neutral. They have the moral responsibility to defend and promote the common good. Neutrality is not an option when it comes to defending the common good. Where they choose to stand has to be determined by the truth of what is for the common good.

In bill 185, with its implicit redefinition of marriage, the legislature of Guam is faced with choosing between two competing views of the common good. Marriage structures civil society. For this reason, since we all belong to civil society, the definition of marriage is not a private matter that can be left to everyone to decide for himself. Everyone has a right to marry, but no one has the right to change the definition of marriage in the pursuit of (their own) private good. That some people (for whatever reason) are not inclined or desirous of being a part of a biological couple who undertake to beget and raise the next generation of taxpayers does not mean that the civil laws that define marriage as existing only between a man and a woman are unjust. Just the contrary. Equating marriage with same-sex unions in a way that bill 185 seeks to do will create in the minds of the young the impression that marriage (and the sexuality that it institutionalizes) is not per se orientated to the procreation of new little taxpayers. (And what could be more for the common good than to have new little taxpayers to close the budget gaps for years to come?) For this reason, bill 185 goes against the common good by siding with the view that sodomy is a marital act. Its passage would be an injustice, especially to the young and those ill-equipped to think through these issues on their own. The societies in which we live and their laws have more impact on our thinking than we often realize.

Faced with embodying the truth of sexuality in civil law, no one can be morally neutral, not even the state. But this partiality toward the common good does not mean that religious doctrine is being legislated down anybody’s throat. Religion and ethics are not the same; otherwise, those who advocate bill 185 would be attempting to force their religious beliefs down everybody else’s throats.