@LagomorphAgreed. I'd be interested to hear Mr. Anderson's
comments on the NC case.
Anderson: "[SSM and religious freedom] could exist in theory, but in
practice we see that those who are arguing in favor of redefining marriage are
then trying to stamp out any residual resistance... They want to see those
beliefs eradicated."Anderson: "In all 50 states, two people
of the same sex can live with each other and love each other. If their house of
worship recognizes same-sex marriage, they can have a wedding there."An article in this morning's print edition of the DesNews rebuts
both of these statements (I haven't found it in the online edition yet).
As reported, the United Church of Christ in North Carolina is contesting a state
law that prohibits SSM. Under NC law, it is a misdemeanor to perform a wedding
without filing a marriage license. A UCC minister is facing 120 days in jail
for performing SSM. Clearly, the free exercise of religion is being infringed.
One might say that proponents of traditional marriage want to eradicate the
religious beliefs of proponents of marriage equality.
Anderson: "No great thinker in human history has ever argued that race has
anything to do with marriage."Really? Perhaps the Greek
philosophers did not link race and marriage, but plenty of legislators
(apparently not great thinkers) did. How else do you explain the
antimiscenegation laws that persisted until the Loving decision? Many have made
the connection between race, procreation, and marriage.Anderson:
"Marriage laws take nothing away from anyone... If their house of worship
recognizes same-sex marriage, they can have a wedding there. If their business
wants to give them marriage benefits, the business can."A church
wedding without civil recognition is meaningless. It provides none of the legal
benefits (inheritance, hospital visitation, insurance coverage, taxation, etc.)
that make marriage desirable. It is a sham. Would Anderson consider straight
couples that exchanged church vows but failed to file paperwork with the
government to be "wedded"? Would an employer recognize it as valid in
conferring benefits?Anderson's religious freedom answer also
fails to consider that churches that support SSM are prevented by government
authority from freely exercising their religious faith.
At some future date, similar to those that survived the Holocaust, society will
see it all very clearly. Marriage has been, and always will be, between a man
and a women. Anything less perpetuates a vision of the future that accommodates
moral decline at the expense of children.