(by Stanley Carlson-Thies)

The federal government has gradually been requiring in its grant programs that grantees interpret the terms “marriage,” “spouse,” “dependent,” and “family” to include legally married same-sex spouses and marriages. This is a response to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 (Windsor) that the federal government may not maintain its own, opposite-sex, definition of marriage but must accept as legal marriages whatever the various states decide on.

So, when a program to help the poor obtain decent housing requires that the income of both the applicant and his or her “spouse” be added together to determine eligibility, the organizations that operate the program on behalf of the federal government have to add together the incomes of the applicant and of the applicant’s opposite-sex or same-sex spouse. Simple enough. But what if the federal program awards money to private organizations to design and run classes to help people improve their marriages? Stronger marriages with fewer divorces are good for the couples and for their children.

Not that long ago, all of these federally funded programs used curricula and ran classes that focused on helping husbands and wives be loving and supportive of each other. And then states and courts began to legalize same-sex marriage. Now the federal government requires that grant programs acknowledge same-sex marriages and spouses. Does this mean that all federally funded programs must now adopt a marriage curriculum that assumes that same-sex marriages and opposite-sex marriages are identical in all ways? That the dynamics between a husband and wife are no different than between two people of the same sex?

Such a change-the requirement to affirm marriage equality-would produce classes and curriculum acceptable to many who arrive for help, but unacceptable to many others. Those who are sure that God designed marriage to be a man-woman unity are unlikely to find very helpful or very trustworthy a class that teaches that same-sex marriage is just the same thing as traditional marriage.

To serve the whole public, with its diverse convictions about what marriage truly is-whatever the government has decided civil marriage to be-the federal government should not stop funding organizations committed to traditional marriage, even when it awards grants to organizations that teach “marriage equality.”

But should every federally funded marriage-strengthening program be required to admit to its classes every legally married couple that shows up and seeks help? Should the Baptist organization be required to welcome into the class a same-sex married couple, even though it will be teaching that marriage is a man-woman unity? Should the Episcopal organization be required to welcome into its class the opposite-sex married couple, even though that couple is sure that same-sex marriages are not real marriages, whatever the government, and the Episcopal church, says?

And if the answer is yes, what happens when the same-sex couple or the opposite-sex couple, respectively, begins to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome-not served adequately but instead offended? Will the grantees get into legal trouble or will the government stand up for their right to stick to their respective curricula and convictions about marriage?

Stay tuned! Your federal officials are considering such questions at this moment.