Is it in the best interest of religious institutions and individuals to articulate secular arguments for their moral positions?

I don’t think so. I think people of secular persuasion need to understand that religion isn’t going anywhere and it’s awfully selfish to expect people of faith to apologize for their choices all the time. We have nothing for which we must apologize to them. We do have, however, a very REAL responsibility to follow Christ at all times. He taught us to carry our crosses, to disengage with those who would not be dissuaded from their ways. We’re supposed to be His followers, and He has made it clear that He believes in the sanctity of life.

By appealing to philosophy or science in order to avoid contention, we present both falsely as our motivations and bring people to a false understanding of what it means to be advocates of morality. We must, as a people, come to understand that to stand by principle, even to the point of contention, was His way. If you don’t believe that, have a closer look at the New Testament Gospels some time. When we bear the cross of discipleship, we need to be willing to pay that price. If He did so, being perfect, why shouldn’t we?

I wonder about this stated reason too, though in a different way than you. If by ‘God’s will’ we mean letting events take their natural course, then one wouldn’t be doing repro procedures. I wonder if what the Stansel’s meant by God’s will was something more like God’s will in their specific situation (i.e., some kind of personal revelation directing them to proceed) or God’s will with respect to abortion.

The pitfalls of being open about purely religious motivations are as you say. One pitfall of recasting ones’ views in secular terms is that our culture values authenticity (too much, probably, but that’s another discussion).

as a secularist myself, i could not agree more with your first paragraph.

but your second begins with a misunderstanding.

it is not the aim of secularists to push religion out of debates on public policy. indeed, it would be counter to our interests to do so. we welcome religious arguments in such debates because the american people are, in the spirit of the founders, inherently wary of them!

The secular arguments against gay marriage, when they aren’t just based on bigotry or custom, tend to be abstract in ways that don’t find purchase in American political discourse. I say, ‘Institutional support for reproduction,’ you say, ‘I love my boyfriend and I want to marry him.’ Who wins that debate? You win that debate.

and of course, not only is “institutional support for reproduction” not persuasive, it’s intellectually dishonest. if a hetero-only marriage policy is meant to support reproduction then the policy is, as one justice so well put it, at the same time too inclusive and too exclusive.

there’s nothing wrong with opposing a certain public policy for religious reasons. why not just be up front about it?

but with regard to your question — should people offer secular rationales for their faith-based decisions? — the answer is clearly no.

it’s disingenuous, it betrays a lack of confidence in one’s religious convictions, and the secular rationales offered are usually bogus anyway.

the example before us is a case in point. there is no secular rationale for not selectively reducing a six embryeo pregnancy during the first trimester. that’s why her doctor recommended it.

witness also: Ross Douthat on gay marriage.