Thoughts on same-sex marriage ruling

This Fourth of July weekend is a much-welcomed summer breather for Americans. We gather with family and friends and eat food and drink beverages that are anything but low-cal. We sit back on patio chairs, look at kids with inflatables in swimming pools and watch the fireworks. The Fourth is the pause that refreshes.

And this particular year, on this annual celebration of this nation's founding, these United States of America are reeling from a collective shudder.

On June 26, the Supreme Court held that the recognition of same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The decision set off two general reactions: either spasms of joy, marked in part by Facebook users sundering their profile pictures in rainbow colors, or waves of grief, head-holding and cries of, "What's happened to my country?"

This column will not take a side. Millions of words have done that already. No need to add my measly 600-plus words to that argument.

I am concerned about two things that have not been widely discussed, to my knowledge:

1. The narrowness of the SCOTUS decision (a 5-4 vote to overturn a lower-court ruling and establish a legal right for same-sex marriage);

2. The effect that Obergefell v. Hodges might have on the tax-exempt status of churches.

The narrowness of the decision

The high court ruled 5-4 to, in effect, establish a legal ground to redefine marriage in America; 5-4 is, essentially, a coin flip. Shouldn't a landmark decision require a supermajority vote? When a vote is so close, questions of legitimacy can linger in the minds of Americans. Yes, it's now the law, and the 13 states (including Missouri) that previously did not permit same-sex unions will have to comply.

Other landmark rulings by the high court were produced by votes that left little doubt: Brown v. the Board of Education (1954), which ended state-sponsored "separate but equal" segregation in schools, was decided 9-0. President Richard Nixon being forced to turn over his White House tapes (1974), 8-0. Even Roe v. Wade, the abortion ruling, was a decisive 7-2 (1973).

Living in a 5-4 world, as a clergy colleague from Tennessee has pointed out, can be difficult to navigate. Legitimacy cannot be compelled. It would have been better for the country if the decision had been more clear-cut.

When the original disciples of Jesus chose a replacement for Judas Iscariot, however, they did so by casting lots, by gambling, which is a little disturbing -- and in light of that biblical example, perhaps a 5-4 SCOTUS vote isn't so regrettable.

The tax-exempt status of churches

There are denominations that historically have refused to allow same-sex unions in their sanctuaries or permit their clergy to perform them. My church, the United Methodist Church, is one of them. Now, with the SCOTUS decision, there is a question -- if a church (or a pastor) declines to perform a same-sex union, will the federal government threaten the loss of tax-exempt status? My denominational tradition will take up the matter of same-sex unions at its quadrennial General Conference in 2016. It will be interesting to see what happens. United Methodism had its founding in America in 1784, but the explosive growth in my tradition in recent years has been in Africa -- and African Methodists have shown little interest in the marriage debate in the U.S.

I expect those traditions that decline to perform same-sex marriages will see a challenge to tax-exemption -- and that's a challenge churches can ill afford. It would be a shame to see churches and denominations make a decision largely for financial reasons.

Make no mistake: "Legalizing love" is complicated.