| halogamer1989 said: Nobody looks @ it in terms of precedent. Say if same-sex was legalized and a pastor refused to marry a couple then that would be in violation of federal and/or state law/mandates. When it would go to the SC it would mean that the Separation of Church and State would be null and void in theory. After that decision, the SC could interpret what a church/synagogue/mosque does as fair game for state and fed lawyers. Could you imagine a case like Massachusetts v. ____ Church? It would wreck the Jeffersonian model. |
This is actually the main reason I think no "marriage" should be recognized by the government. So the government has no say in it at all.
If you haven't yet halo, look over the thread and see that most people seem to support a system where as far as the government is concerned a "marriage" would be a civil union and that the term "marriage" would be given entirely back to the churches. Thus your marriage license would become your civil union instead and once you have the civil union straightened out legally you could then go have a wedding (lets say your both catholic for instance) and it would be a "catholic marriage".
Then each church has control of its definition and the government keeps its fingers out of telling churches how to run their faith. The gay community gets the equal rights because it is the exact same legal designation, and religious folks get to keep their traditions.
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
