So what does “conservative” mean in American these days, when journalists are talking about cultural debates in the public square? How about the term “culture wars”?

While there are moral libertarians out there, I would assume that they are rarely called “conservatives.” There are people — think Andrew Sullivan — who are liberal on most social issues (not all), but journalists tend to identify them as conservatives because they defend basic First Amendment rights for all, even “conservatives.”

Too see what that looks like in practice, check out this new Sullivan commentary at NPR:

I believe in life. I believe in treasuring it as a mystery that will never be fully understood, as a sanctity that should never be destroyed, as an invitation to experience now what can only be remembered tomorrow. I believe in its indivisibility, in the intimate connection between the newest bud of spring and the flicker in the eye of a patient near death, between the athlete in his prime and the quadriplegic vet, between the fetus in the womb and the mother who bears another life in her own body. 

I believe in liberty. I believe that within every soul lies the capacity to reach for its own good, that within every physical body there endures an unalienable right to be free from coercion. 

That sound you hear, on left and right, is people saying: “But what about … ?”

This brings me to a haunted (click here for context) news story that ran the other day in The New York Times with this epic double-decker headline:

A Massachusetts City Decides to Recognize Polyamorous Relationships

The city of Somerville has broadened the definition of domestic partnership to include relationships between three or more adults, expanding access to health care.

This raises all kinds of questions, including this one: “How did these public officials define ‘relationships’?” The lede simply notes that this “left-leaning Massachusetts city expanded its notion of family to include people who are polyamorous, or maintaining consenting relationships with multiple partners.”

The key voice at the top of this story is that of J.T. Scott, a city councilor who supported the move:

“I don’t think it’s the place of the government to tell people what is or is not a family,” Mr. Davis, who is a lawyer, said at a meeting. ... “Defining families is something that historically we’ve gotten quite wrong as a society, and we ought not to continue to try and undertake to do so.”

Under the new ordinance, city employees in polyamorous relationships would be able to extend health benefits to multiple partners. But it is not clear, Mr. Davis said, whether private employers will follow the city’s lead.

“Based on the conversations I’ve had,” he said, “the most important aspect is that the city is legally recognizing and validating people’s existence. That’s the first time this is happening.”

Now, when you say that “society” had previously messed up, when defining the word “family,” what is that claim all about? Might there be a bit of religious content there?

Just asking. I realize that Massachusetts is a rather post-Catholic and post-Congregationalist state, but that implies that religion used to play a role in the public square. Might the Times team want to seek out a few religious voices in Somerville for commentary.

I’m just talking about some basic facts. I realize that today’s Times doesn’t recognize old-school standards of balance, fairness and respect on moral and cultural issues of this kind.

So who opposed this change? Read this next part carefully:

Andy Izenson, a lawyer with the Chosen Family Law Center, a nonprofit organization that provides legal services to polyamorous and other nontraditional families, said the ordinance could be put to a judicial test if health insurance companies reject the city’s more expansive definition of domestic partnership. It could also run into resistance from conservatives, as same-sex marriage did in 2015.

Or it could, as he put it, “fly under the radar.”

“When one area does it, and it serves as a test case, and legislators see that the town or county has not had a culture war implosion,” he said, “that’s how things spread.”

In this context, what does “conservative” mean? How about the term “culture wars”?

Might there be a bit of religious content there that is worth exploring? Maybe even talk to some of those strange people?

To see the religious implications, let’s look at this issue in a mirror. If you want to know what evangelicals, Catholics and the Orthodox are thinking, one way to answer that question is to look at the Unitarian Universalists and then turn those statements inside-out.

That, for example, this credo from the Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness. This is long, but really interesting:

We are UUs. We sing next to you in Sunday services and in choir lofts. We serve on church committees and teach religious education. We attend regional meetings and General Assemblies, where many of us serve as delegates from our congregations. Our faith is important to us.

We are families. We raise children, cherish pets, and keep in touch with extended family. We have jobs, pay bills, and try to keep up with household chores. Our family structure may be a little different than most people expect, but otherwise, we are just like everybody else. …

We are proud to note the UUA officially includes polyamorists in their membership guidelines. See the UUPA Report on General Assembly 2014 The 2014 General Assembly passed a package of amendments to the UUA Non-discrimination Statement, including insertion of the phrase "family and relationship structures."

That is one doctrinal take on this issue. There are others, even in New England. Some of them are “conservative” and have something to do with the history of this city, that state and its surrounding region.

Is there a religion “ghost” in this story?