( CNN ) -- It was inevitable that the debate over same-sex marriage would have a strong religious component . This is partly because it involves such questions as the interpretation of biblical passages that , on their face , condemn homosexuality as a sin . But it also involves squaring the authority of ancient texts with modern theological understanding and developments in biology . And of course , the importance of love and human autonomy as religious values should be considered . Those issues surfaced in the various briefs filed in the Supreme Court , some of which are written as if the court must inevitably choose one religious point of view as the winner and the other as the loser . This is a false choice . The Court can make all winners , or at least avoid allowing one side to suppress the other 's deepest beliefs . The U.S. Supreme Court has not been asked -- nor could it possibly answer -- the question of what God or the Bible thinks about same-sex marriage . Religious groups are divided on that question , some supporting and others opposing same-sex marriage . And even if the religious viewpoint were clear , it should play no direct role in deciding whether the Constitution requires the states or the federal government to recognize same-sex marriage . Our government should not act to further one or another religious view of contested moral issues . Opinion : The real 'modern family ' in America . Neither the court nor government may referee religious disputes . Under the Constitution , religious groups are free to urge and put into practice their different visions of the good , of moral life , and compete for adherents in the marketplace of ideas . Winners and losers are determined by the `` votes '' of individuals and congregations , of believers and nonbelievers , not by government bodies . Neither can citizens opposed to same-sex marriage demand that the government refuse recognition to such marriages in order to avoid offending their religious sensibilities . Religious liberty , as the American Jewish Committee told the Supreme Court recently in a friend-of-the-court brief , does not give anyone the right to demand that someone else be deprived of the `` right to live the most intimate portions of their lives according to their own deepest convictions . '' That some religious groups regard same-sex marriage as an `` abomination '' does not authorize the government to ban such relationships . That is one price we all pay for protecting religious liberty . Conversely , when government does recognize same-sex marriage , it creates a new set of problems for the liberties of religious believers . These extend well beyond the right of clergy or houses of worship not to perform or host same-sex ceremonies , or the right of religious institutions opposed to same-sex marriage to remain tax exempt . Sutter : The county where no one 's gay . Among other likely questions that will arise are these : . -- Must rabbis , priests and pastors provide religious marriage counseling to same-sex couples ? -- Must religious colleges provide married-student housing to same-sex couples ? -- Must churches and synagogues employ spouses who are in same-sex marriages , even though such employees would be persistently and publicly flouting the religious teachings they would be hired to promote ? -- Must religious social service agencies place children for adoption with same-sex couples ? Already , Catholic Charities in Illinois , Massachusetts , and the District of Columbia have closed their adoption units because of this issue . Resolving these conflicts will not be easy . In some instances the rights of same-sex couples will unavoidably trump religious liberty rights -- for example , the much discussed question of visits to spouses in intensive care units . But there will be cases where religious liberty will trump , and same-sex couples will have to accept the reality that not everyone accepts their relationships as legitimate . This , too , is a price to be paid for religious liberty . Same-sex couples should not be denied the right to civil marriage ; that is the immediate issue in the cases now before the Supreme Court . And when that right is secured , same-sex couples should not , without very good reason , be allowed to force dissenting religious organizations to recognize or facilitate their marriages . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Marc D. Stern .
Marc Stern : The debate over same-sex marriage has a strong religious component . Stern : Government should not further one religious view over another on gay marriage . He gives an example -- must religious colleges provide housing to same-sex couples ? Stern : A key question is whether recognizing gay marriage infringes upon religious liberty .