Although the ideal of liberal neutrality remains common in political philosophy, some authors argue that moral judgments are indispensable in public decisions. In particular, Michael J. Sandel has proposed that the question of legalizing same-sex marriage cannot be settled without ideas about the value and purpose of marriage. In this study, the final debate in the Swedish parliament about gender-neutral marriage is analyzed in terms of members of parliament’s opinions on state neutrality. It is shown that the ideal of moral neutrality are either rejected or accepted, but in the latter case the value-neutral ideal is not sustained throughout the course of the debate. Instead, members of parliament invoke ideas about the moral value of marriage and same-sex relationships. This adds some credibility to Sandel’s opinion that important public decisions rely on conceptions on what constitutes a good life. However, the ultimate success of Sandel’s argument depends on whether state recognition of civil marriage in itself can be justified on value-neutral grounds.