I steer clear of "political" issues when writing a newspaper column about religious or spiritual issues. There's a reason for the old saw about never discussing politics and religion in polite conversation. Both can be hot topics, and the two so often grow together with their fates intertwined.

Two principles regarding religion were worked into the foundation of our American heritage: The state may not favor or make official any religion (that's the non-establishment clause), and the state may not impede the practice of any religion (that's the freedom clause).

How to maintain the balance is a constant exercise in judgment – why we need state and federal supreme courts.

We need wise and supposedly impartial heads to decide these issues so vital to our freedom – both the freedom from having someone else's religious beliefs imposed upon us, and the freedom to practice our own.

Nowhere is this balancing act clearer right now in Maine than in the same-sex marriage debate.

This issue can be seen as purely political, a matter of civil rights. For those who see it as a civil rights issue, it usually comes down to favoring same-sex marriage as a matter of equality. I could support same-sex marriage on that basis alone. But this is a column that has to do with religion.

Most opposition to same-sex marriage claims a religious basis. At the same time, many religious liberals support same-sex marriage – also on religious grounds. Let's face it, same-sex marriage, whether supported or opposed, has a religious aspect.

The religious views against same-sex marriage seem to focus on a few statements in the Jewish and Christian scriptures and the belief that God does not condone homosexuality. The religious views in favor of same-sex marriage are not often voiced. But they exist.

One of my tradition's fundamental principles is that every human being has inherent worth and dignity. When I was growing up in the '50s and '60s, homosexuality was something a lot of us giggled and made jokes about because – although we wouldn't admit it – it scared us. A lot of heterosexual youth didn't want to be gay, and we didn't know how to respond to people who were. It wasn't openly discussed without uneasiness.

As a young adult, it began to dawn on me that every person surely must have the right to love and be loved, and that whatever gender a person is drawn to surely couldn't have anything to do with the validity of that love.

Now a bit past middle age, I've performed marriage services for a number of same-sex couples. Most of these were "services of holy union," before same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, where I served congregations.

I couldn't sign a license for these couples, but I always used the word "marriage," because the commitment they made to each other was exactly the same as the commitment of heterosexual couples. It's a spiritual commitment, and one my tradition honors.

Many religious arguments against same-sex love are biblically based. But the Bible is a rich and complex document. A handful of prohibitions against homosexual practice exist alongside many more commands about grain offerings and animal sacrifice, and commands not to do many things we do, as well as to do things we wouldn't dream of, like stone obstreperous children to death.

Jesus says nothing about same-sex love. "Traditional families" in the Bible are often polygamous and include concubines. Men in ancient Hebrew times were expected to marry their brothers' widows to provide their brothers with progeny.

Ultimately, though, whatever one's biblical interpretation, for me the question rests on a spiritual value at the heart of most religions: that we are to love and be compassionate toward each other, to be present for each other as individuals and in community. That we are deeply connected with each other from the start of creation, all...