This will be interesting.
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to take up the explosive issue of same-sex marriage, thrusting itself into a policy debate that has divided federal and state governments and courts, as well as voters in nearly 40 states.
If you think about it, there seem to be two kinds of marriage: marriage as sanctioned by religion, and marriage as sanctioned by government. For example, if your religion calls for it, you and your significant other could grasp hands under a full moon, sprinkle pixie dust over your heads, and call yourself married. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the government classifies you as “married.”
Think about the polygamists who “marry” according to their religion. It doesn’t mean squat to the government.
Like it or not, there is a status between consenting adults that the government calls “marriage” that is not necessarily related to religion. My wife and I are married, but we had no religious ceremony. That status provides for certain rights and benefits from the government and society in general.
Because the status of “married” as defined by the government can be different than that as defined by religion, I think it’s important that same sex couples who want to be married as defined by government should be able to do so. That’s the very definition of equal rights under the law.
If certain religious organizations don’t want to recognize those marriages, that’s their right. No one is asking, as far as I know, that churches be forced to perform wedding ceremonies for same sex couples. If that were ever the case, I’d be on your side, Mr. Church goer.
But that isn’t the case.
This means a couple of things. If same sex marriage disgusts you in general, great, no one will be forcing you to marry anyone who is the same gender as you. Secondly, if on religious grounds you are against same sex marriage, great, no one will be forcing your religion to perform same sex marriages or to recognize same sex marriages.