And, the final argument I see (which is really the only one that persuades me) is like jadasc said, that if same-sex unions are legally declared to be equivalent to marriage, that churches with contrary beliefs will be forced to perform them.
This is not actually true. Nor are Orthodox Jewish synagogues required to perform interfaith marriages, even though such marriages are legally recognized. If your church is only willing to perform marriages for fertile heterosexual white people with naturally red hair, the state will not interfere.
This is different from hospitals, because the need for a wedding is never an emergency. People have died because they were refused medical treatment for "moral reasons," so the state takes an interest.
What is dicey, by First Amendment standards, is legally defining marriage according to the standards of some religions while ignoring others. Why is the law set up to recognize all Catholic marriages, but not all Unitarian or Neopagan marriages?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-05 10:03 pm (UTC)This is not actually true. Nor are Orthodox Jewish synagogues required to perform interfaith marriages, even though such marriages are legally recognized. If your church is only willing to perform marriages for fertile heterosexual white people with naturally red hair, the state will not interfere.
This is different from hospitals, because the need for a wedding is never an emergency. People have died because they were refused medical treatment for "moral reasons," so the state takes an interest.
What is dicey, by First Amendment standards, is legally defining marriage according to the standards of some religions while ignoring others. Why is the law set up to recognize all Catholic marriages, but not all Unitarian or Neopagan marriages?