The Christian Civic League is a group of fun-loving folks that just likes to praise Jesus, oppose casinos, and draft vitriolic anti-gay referendums, though not necessarily in that order. Actually, almost certainly not in that order.

The league, after all, is much more of a political organization than a religious one. Its goal is not to spread the Gospel or provide any sort of haven for its members, but rather to promote its legislative agenda. One of the cornerstones of that agenda is the opposition to the homosexual agenda. Hence, the drafting of vitriolic anti-gay referendums.

Michael Heath, the league’s director, apparently doesn’t realize just how petty and amateurish his call for a new referendum to ban special rights for gays sounds.

On the one hand, that’s fine by me, because it means that even some of the people who would otherwise support it might be turned off by the grandstanding rhetoric. On the other hand, Heath makes Christians look bad. He especially makes the conservative Christians who support him look bad. By turning himself into caricature, Heath has made it all too easy to write those conservative Christians off as right-wing, homophobic extremists.

The thing is, most of them aren’t actually homophobic. No, really, they’re not. When conservative Christians talk about family values, it’s not a euphemism for hatred. It’s not a euphemism for anything. They actually just really care about family. And you know what? They should. We should all care about family as much as conservative Christians do.

Conservative Christians view the family as the basic unit of an ordered society. They believe that if the family breaks down, society itself will devolve into chaos. They’re not wrong. Family teaches the individual, when young, how to behave. Family supports the individual, when grown. Family cares for the individual, when old and infirm. At least, these are the services families are supposed to provide.

When families are dysfunctional, society does, in fact, seem to break down. The crime-filled life of the inner city provides a stark glimpse into a world without a stable familial structure. (There are, of course, other factors at work here, such as economic demographics, but let’s tackle one elephant at a time.)

When conservative Christians talk about family, though, they mean something very specific – so specific, in fact, that it can fit onto a bumper sticker. “Marriage: One Man One Woman.” Poor grammar aside, you get the point. The bumper sticker always includes a picture of a stick dad and a stick mom with a little stick kid in between. This is what they call, and what most Americans think of as, the traditional family.

I’m pretty sure this emphasis on the traditional family is actually more conservative than it is Christian. What I mean by that is, the importance conservative Christians place on the small family unit is very much in line with a conservative ideology that contrasts with the liberal ideology of the larger community unit. Whereas, in very general terms, the conservative sees the family as responsible for the education, support and care of the individual, the liberal sees the state as responsible. That, in and of itself, doesn’t have a whole lot to do with Christianity.

Furthermore, the biblical basis for the traditional family is not entirely consistent. In the beginning, of course, God created a man and a woman and ordered them to make babies. Shortly after the beginning, however, polygamy was commonplace, and the Mosaic law didn’t condemn it. Jesus was firmly against adultery, but in Mark 3, when his family was looking for him, Jesus, in a rather liberal turn, asked who his family is, held out his hands to the people sitting around him and said, “Behold, my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.”

Paul, meanwhile, used the traditional family as a metaphor for the godhead in Ephesians 5. In First Corinthians 7, however, he urges people not to marry, so long as they can remain celibate. So it seems both Paul and Jesus embraced a communal version of family, while at the same time supporting the traditional family unit. Perhaps most interestingly, the trinity consists of a father, a son, and a spirit. Notably absent is a mother figure, and the characteristics that would normally be associated with her are split up between the three, falling especially heavily on the son. Which is to say, the central family unit of most Christian belief is itself untraditional.

With this in mind, conservative Christians, while right to place a great importance on family, have ultimately defined it too narrowly. What is important about family isn’t its composition, but its ability to provide the educational, supportive and caring services it is supposed to provide.

Which brings us back to gay rights. Now, the Bible contains verses which clearly condemn homosexuality, both in the Mosaic law and Paul’s epistles. It is, therefore, unreasonable to expect a group of people who view the Bible as the unadulterated word of God to view homosexuality as anything but a sin. Conservative Christians are actually bound by their belief system to do so. Nobody should be offended by that. There are, after all, lots of sins. As any good Baptist will tell you, we’re all sinners.

Of course, conservative Christians could do a better job of placing homosexuality in that context as well. It may be a sin, but it’s not any more of a sin, perhaps even a less destructive one, than gossiping or lying, and they should not view it as the death knell of ordered society.

Instead of aligning themselves behind hysterical referendums that seek to ban “special rights” – a meaningless political sound bite of a term – and further define marriage, perhaps they should consider the benefits of an expanded definition of family, one which allows for more people to find the stability that family can provide.

After all, more stable families providing education, support and care means a more stable society filled with more stable individuals. And isn’t that what we all want?

Well, except for anarchists, I guess. Perhaps Heath should draft a referendum against them. No special rights for anarchists! Let’s make that happen.

Justin Fowler is a student at University College of Bangor. He may be reached at justin.fowler@verizon.net. Voices is a weekly commentary by Maine people who explore issues affecting spirituality and religious life.