Here's the question/issue nobody addresses: Every day legally ordained clergy perform "weddings" for gay couples. The unions, of course, are not recognized by the gubmint.
So, should these clergy be banned from conducting the services? And what defines a marriage -- gubmint recognition or the blessing of clergy?
And what defines a marriage -- gubmint recognition or the blessing of clergy?"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices... " [Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).]
See also: Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).
No man can become a law unto himself under the guise of freedom in religion...
Marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right. It is a privileged practice that requires a license.
"Here's the question/issue nobody addresses: Every day legally ordained clergy perform "weddings" for gay couples. The unions, of course, are not recognized by the gubmint.
So, should these clergy be banned from conducting the services? And what defines a marriage -- gubmint recognition or the blessing of clergy?"
A marriage is a contract between a man, a woman, and the state. For many people, it's also a religious/moral union (myself included). But surely when we (conservatives) advocate against "gay marriage," we aren't insisting that it be illegal for private individual to conduct their own little "commitment" or "union" (insert another description here) ceremonies. Rather, we do not think that the state, who recognizes marriage as a fundamental right (and facilitates the privileges that go along with that right) should extend that right to people who don't fit the very definition of marriage (ie, same sex couples).
I think it's silly and stupid when gay couples have their little ceremonies (and it's even worse if some "clergy" is condoning it, let alone peforming the ceremony. I would question that person's sincere faith in God and His teachings). But I don't think the government should prohibit them from pretending they're married or have a "union" or whatever. They can wear their bands and celebrate their anniversaries all they want. But they shouldn't be treated like a married couple.
The point I tried to make earlier is that I disagree with the concept of "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" because it is essentially a marriage by another name. The government is trying to make both sides happy; but a rose by any other name is still a rose. I don't believe the state should sanction homoesexuals relationships like they do (and should) heterosexual relationships (ie, marriage).