- Legalizing gay marriage, as opposed to gay "civil unions," would violate the separation of Church and State by forcing churches to marry gay couples in violation of the tenets of their faith.
This is BS! Furthermore, those who seeded this propaganda into the general populace KNOW it is BS!! They're counting on your ignorance to ensure that their bigotry will continue to be legitimized through our marriage laws.
Churches are currently free and regularly exercise their rights to refuse to marry any opposite-gendered couple, without being under any obligation to provide ANY reason for their refusal, much less one that speaks directly to the tenets of that church's faith.
Not every religious group believes and/or teaches that same-gendered relationships are sinful or an abomination.
With legal recognition of same-gendered marriages, churches would remain just as free to refuse to marry any same-gendered couple with or without citing religious or any other reasons for their refusal.
By contrast, recognizing only same-gendered civil unions (as opposed to both civil unions and unions of holy matrimony) would mean that clergy, regardless of the tenets of their faith, would remain FORBIDDEN from legally joining same gendered couples, according to the tenets of their faith, as that power would be reserved to State.
If allowing clergy the power to join, if they so choose, same-gendered couples, in both the eyes of God and the eyes of the law, violates separation of church and state, it follows that allowing clergy to join, if they so choose, opposite gendered couples, in both the eyes of the God and the eyes of the law, also violates separation of church and state.
In areas like mine, where options are already severely limited for opposite gendered couples, this would further limit a same-gendered couple wishing to marry to having a ceremony performed by a judge, in open court, between cases, if time allows.
Thus, same-gendered couples, in areas like mine, who could otherwise have found clergy willing to officiate their ceremonies, would be excluded from the simple rights of choosing to have a private ceremony for just family and friends, setting a specific date and time, choosing a venue for the ceremony, having music, decorations, a photographer, etc. Further, regardless of where they live or how many options they have for civil ceremonies, same-gendered couples of faith who wish to be joined in the eyes of their deity, under the tenets of their faith, would be forced to have a separate religious ceremony to do so.
Holding same-gendered marriages to the strictest interpretation of separation of church and state opens a door, through the setting of precedent, for opposite gendered marriages to be held to the same strict standards. In other words, it could be used to argue, successfully, that no clergy-performed ceremony should be recognized by the state and that only with a separate civil ceremony, should ANY marriage obtain legal recognition.
Gay Marriage -- Table of Contents