[UPDATE]: I had posted this about an hour ago, and we had a good number of comments on it. Unfortunately, our server has suffered a glitch, and everything posted over the last hour, including comments, has been lost. I blame the Republicans.
Dana Pico has a valid concern:
I have one, and really only one, concern [on gay marriage]. I want churches protected from criminal and civil liability if they refuse to perform a same-sex marriage. Many of our friends on the left pooh-pooh the idea that churches could be compelled to perform such, under the First Amendment, but seem strangely reticent to be willing to enact more explicit protections for churches in the event that same-sex marriages become legal.
To me, it’s simple: it doesn’t take much imagination to guess what could happen if an interracial couple went to a church, and asked to be married, and the minister refused because his church does not believe in interracial marriages. That minister and his church would face being sued, because they had discriminated on race, and churches fit the definition of a public accommodation. Since we license ministers to perform marriages, they have a dual religious-state legal function.
Well sooner or later, a same-sex couple is going to present themselves to a Catholic priest, and ask for a nuptial Mass. The priest will have no choice but to refuse, and he, and his parish, and his diocese will all get sued. A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which undid a discharge under the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy held that classifications based on sexual orientation would be examined under a higher level of scrutiny; Patterico explains it here. This could mean that discrimination based on sexual orientation might be held to the same standard as discrimination based on race.
In the event of legally recognized same-sex marriage, we need solid protection for churches.
Excellent point, Dana, one which I completely agree with. And I would be willing to offer such protections, if I had that power. For in my mind, as I have said before, the whole way our government approaches marriage is wrong. The state should not be performing marriages. All the state should do is grant legal sanction to the union of two consenting unrelated adults, regardless of gender or orientation. It should not be issuing Marriage Licenses, but rather Union Certicates. If you want to get married in a church, you can, so long as the church agrees to marry you. If a church refuses, your only recourse would be to find a church that will. And there are churches that will marry homosexuals. For example, the UCC. Some Episcopal churches will.
Gay marriage is gaining legality mostly through the courts striking down same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional, except in Vermont, which becomes the first state to legalize gay marriage via legislation. And the bill enacted over the veto of the Republican Governor of Vermont contains this provision: (PDF)
This section does not require a member of the clergy authorized tosolemnize a marriage as set forth in subsection (a) of this section, nor societies of Friends or Quakers, the Christadelphian Ecclesia, or the Baha’i Faith to solemnize any marriage, and any refusal to do so shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.