On the “Respect for Marriage Act”
Here’s a prediction from John Daniel Davidson at The Federalist about what the result would be if the act were passed:
Anyone who owns a small business related to the wedding industry — photographers, bakers, website designers, venue owners, caterers, florists — will be sued into oblivion if they refuse services to same-sex couples. Religious colleges and universities will lose their tax-exempt status. Religious institutions of every kind, if they hold to their teachings and traditions about marriage, will face an onslaught from the Department of Justice and the federal bureaucracy…
No, the bill won’t provide religious institutions with meaningful protections. Yes, the bill could certainly be used as a basis for the Internal Revenue Service to deny tax-exempt status to religious organizations that don’t toe the line on gay marriage. Yes, it could also be used to deny grants, licenses, or contracts. No, weak language about preserving the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is not enough to prevent harm to religious liberty.
I will add that the Democrats see this act as “win/win.” That’s because it’s either passed (win!) or not passed because of Republican opposition (win! because then the GOP members of Congress who voted against it are labeled homophobe bigots).
Davidson goes on to mention that the left has been trying to merge those who oppose gay marriage with advocates of anti-miscegenation laws, drumming up a notion that the latter are numerous and powerful. I suppose there are some random neo-Nazis who would love to pass such laws, but they have zero place in the GOP and zero power, and the Democrats of course know that. But it suits the left to pretend otherwise.
[NOTE: In this post from 2010 I discussed the history of anti-miscegenation laws in the US.]
[ADDENDUM: The bill does not contain language that would fix some of its problems concerning religious liberty. That seems to be a purposeful omission. For example:
The marriage bill’s sponsors easily could add a clause saying: “No federal, state, or local taxing authority shall revoke any tax-exempt status or tax benefit of any nonprofit organization because it believes or acts on the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.” This simple protection would take the tax issue entirely off the table, which is precisely why the bill’s sponsors steadfastly refuse to adopt it…
Although the bill may provide some explicitly religious nonprofits additional clarity outside of the house-of-worship context, few if any religious social service organizations would benefit, including adoption agencies and marriage counseling organizations. That’s because they don’t have anything at all to do with wedding solemnization itself (the only thing ostensibly protected by the bill).
This explains why controversies and lawsuits over same-sex marriage celebrations have focused on bakers, photographers, web designers, printers, meeting halls, bed and breakfasts, and florists—with decidedly mixed success for people of faith.
These documented and repeated examples of people of faith being harassed and driven out of business today over forced same-sex marriage celebrations get no protection at all under Democrats’ bill.]
And coming soon to a theater near you:
the “Respect for the Environment” Act….
‘Farcical COP27 Debacle Ends In “Tears And Frustration” As Furious Eco-Delegates Realize Who’s In Charge’—
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/farcical-cop27-debacle-ends-tears-and-frustration-furious-eco-delegates-realize-whos
We are living in The Age of Absurdity—or, perhaps, a relapse into collective adolescence.
In such a scenario—in such a reality—the countries/civilizations who are, or who can manage to stay, the LEAST absurd will “inherit the earth”…
(This is why, unfortunately, only a massive global disaster can provide the “slap in the face” that will, one hopes, return the West to sobriety. To adulthood.)
12 Republican Senators are conserving conservatism by voting for this thing. This is why we say “Uniparty”.
Including Mitt Romney, naturally.
Religious liberty is in the Constitution, and if the courts decide to follow the Constitution, the law will not be allowed to violate religious liberty even without explicit protection for religious liberty. If the courts decide not to follow the Constitution, any “religious liberty” protections will be made void.
These Republicans have sold us out in exchange for nothing that conservatives value, just as they do every time it really matters.
I’m sure they’re getting some love on the appropriations side in exchange.
I am a partner in a same-sex marriage. To my mind, since the government is in the marriage business, same-sex couples are entitled, as a matter of basic justice and civil rights, to all the marriage-related and -derived rights, benefits, and responsibilities that accrue to heterosexual couples.
We can honor religious objections to same-sex marriage by respecting the right and freedom of churches, but not government officials like Kim Davis, to perform only heterosexual marriages.
As for the wedding industry, I suppose First Amendment rights will continue to be clarified as individual cases work their way through the courts. Personally, instead of picking a fight with a so-called bigot, I would perfer to patronize one of the many businesses that see me and my marriage in a positive light. At the same time, if (as I believe) civil rights are involved, what stops a business from using religion as a reason to discriminate against racial minorities, for example?
Meanwhile, we can ask whether the same activists who sue Christian bakers and florists for refusing service to same-sex couples would be willing to take a Muslim small-business owner to court for the same putative offense. Somehow I doubt it.
Given its provisions, the “Respect for Marriage Act” directly and clearly violates the 1st Amendment’s provision that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise thereof”
If the Supreme Court were to uphold a direct violation of the first amendment, it would de-legitimize itself and effectively render the Constitution null and void.
No government that passes clearly unconstitutional laws retains its legitimacy and effectively rules through the threat and use of armed force.
@MollyG:what stops a business from using religion as a reason to discriminate against racial minorities, for example?
The same thing that stops it now, before this act is passed. It is already illegal for a business to discriminate against racial minorities, regardless if there’s a religious motivation.
This act is not needed to protect racial minorities from discrimination by businesses, so you can rest easy there.
It is needed in order to force big church-affiliated groups–hospitals, adoption agencies, colleges–to violate their religious principles or have their assets looted by the trial lawyers, and that is its purpose.
MollyG: Thank you for a reasoned contribution to this discussion.
However, there is a fundamental issue that no one seems to get: Marriage is not a “right.”
By definition, if you must get permission from the government to do something, it is not a right. For example, when my wife and I (50 years ago) got a marriage license in Missouri, we had to get blood tests, sign affidavits about not being married to someone else, meet residency requirements, etc. None of this is applicable now as Congress and legislatures can easily change the rules for something that is not a right.
That is the legal basis for treating gays differently from straights. Marriage is not a right.
To amplify a little on what Mike Smith said: there are limitations on who you can marry no matter what kind of love there is. There’s age, consanguinity, the condition of one of the prospective partners already being married to someone else, etc. Each of these limitations has some kind of purpose to it which our laws treat as higher than any love that might exist between the participants.
abomination of marriage act, or corruption therein, they seem intent on spoiling poisoning every institution they can get their hands on, till the whole edifice collapses on itself, the balenciaga ad that endorses kiddy porn, is one small part of it,*
* this was one of the companies that cancelled kanye, coincidence,
I predicted this when King Anthony Kennedy issued his Edict.
We all know how the Left loves to use lawfare to get its way. They’ll sue every religious college and university in America and make them bend the knee. They’ll attack their status as a non-profit that allows donors to claim tax deductions for gifts. That’s how the Left works. You see, the contrary position is both “hate” and against the new law.
I agree there are limitations on who can get married to prevent bigomy, incest, etc. My question is what is the state’s interest with regard to banning same sex marriage? Or is this simply an attempt to impose traditional religious beliefs and practices on people without their consent which is against the Constitution?
The article definitely takes the position of being victimized by gay marriages but doesn’t convince me that religious people would suffer greater harm than gay people whose committed relationships are not acknowledged and whose families are not protected.
I think we are past having the conversation about whether the government has the right to discriminate based on religion.
The basic holding of this Act is that a marriage which was legal in the state in which it was contracted should be legal in any other state.
What the Act doesn’t do is provide religious or conscience protection for people who, while not denying the state recognition, nevertheless cannot accept it for the purposes of religious instruction, adoption placements, and a host of other situations in which judgment is protected by the First Amendment.
As for the basic purpose of the Act, it has already been accomplished by the Supreme Court.
Sen. Mike Lee, and others, have proposed an amendment which would specifically protect objectors from losing tax-free status and certifications of various kinds.
MollyG points out, very reasonably, that same-sex couples can patronize businesses which support their position, and also, that the people who are targeted by the bill’s failure to protect them are Christian conservatives, but not Muslims — because, you know, some people are not violent, and some others are.
Frederick:
The 12 Republicans have not voted for the bill. The votes in question were for cloture.
See this:
It may indeed be that they all will vote for the bill as well. But the bill itself has not yet been voted on in the Senate.
i don’t trust them to do the right thing, they want to be on the ‘right side of history’ even if the bury the country with it, look at all the slings and arrows they have allowed to happen in the last two years,
I’ve added an ADDENDUM at the end of the post, with some details on some of its omissions.
Frederick:
The act has two other purposes as well. The first is to hang the epithet “homophobe!” on every Republican who doesn’t vote for it. The second is to imply that the GOP is intent on reinstituting laws against interracial marriage and that therefore interracial marriage needs a special law to protect it.
@neo:The 12 Republicans have not voted for the bill. The votes in question were for cloture.
Yes, they are voting for it before they vote against it–if they do… we know how this dance works. If all the Dems stay in lockstep, not one Republican vote is needed for the “real” vote. By voting for cloture they are actually voting for the bill, because their “nay” vote–if any of them are planning to vote “nay”–will be meaningless, mathematical certainty.
Since cloture is fake, according to the Senate rules, this very instance is an illustration of why it exists. When it’s to their advantage to say that voting for/against cloture is the same as voting for/against the bill itself, they take credit, and when not they insist on the difference. I am not willing to help them fool their constituents, one more time. They are voting to advance the bill to simple majority vote, when it is mathematically certain that simple majority vote will be there. They know full well what they are doing, so do I, and so do you.
The first is to hang the epithet “homophobe!” on every Republican who doesn’t vote for it. The second is to imply that the GOP is intent on reinstituting laws against interracial marriage
Any insight into why Mitt Romney and crew are helping them to achieve this by voting for cloture? By voting for cloture do they think they will be insulated from these criticisms if they-LOL-vote “nay” later? What about their fellow Republicans who didn’t vote for cloture, just left to twist in the wind, you suppose?
I think “more GOP failure theater” is the Occam’s Razor explanation.
Funny how very well greased (lubricated) the incline has proven to be ever since some dude in a black robe had a penumbra about another aspect of society and humanity. Other folk in black robes may disagree. Time will tell.
Acceptance, tolerance, became compliance to the point of legal sanction and forced obedience, That flower shop is in my town, that cake shop is in Colorado, that other bakery was in Portland. I forget where the photographer lived, or the family that rented their property for traditional wedding receptions was. All must comply! You will comply or the state will bankrupt you or imprison you. Your church and religion do not matter to the state. Power and the thrill of force. Because, love.
Funny how intolerant the left becomes once they get a point of purchase for their tools and levers of destruction. Destruction? Current psychopathology regarding gender, groomers in the schools, attempts to normalize pedophilia. All in the name of “love” or lust. Whatever.
“the thrill of force”
om. That’s for the spectators, too. And see masking and vaxxing and lockdowns.
Richard Aubrey:
Indeed regarding the COVID 19 disaster. Lives and livelihoods destroyed because, power and forced compliance.
The disease was bad enough, but it was used as tool to weaken society, weaken churches, debase an election, …. But forgiveness must (not) be granted, they (did not) mean well.
Why bother adding a clause to protect religious belief. Some judge would declare it unconstitutional.
Rosalyn C.: “The article definitely takes the position of being victimized by gay marriages but doesn’t convince me that religious people would suffer greater harm than gay people whose committed relationships are not acknowledged and whose families are not protected.”
Suppose marriages between homosexuals returned to being a legal nullity. Isn’t it the case that a pair of homosexuals could write a contract with each other that accomplishes the same things as automatically apply in a traditional marriage between heterosexuals?
That wouldn’t necessarily be a big undertaking. There could be standard, legally-tested language, among which such homosexual couples could pick and choose which parts to incorporate in their own contract.
Another tool that the Left can use to destroy their enemies.
The Left has become consumed with hatred for those they do not like. I believe that if they ever take total control of the government, camps will ensue.
I absolutely want First Amendment / religious rights protected in the event that this bill moves forward and is passed.
The addition of such protective language would set off a big fight. Good. Let’s have it.
But, given Justice Thomas’s remarks after the Dobbs decision, I am glad this bill was introduced and appears to be moving toward a vote.
Justice Thomas dared to say that other sacred edifices of the left have shaky foundations. Preferences and privileges become rights. How special.
That man doesn’t know his place (actually he does and he is in the right place).
So some Senators who think the Constitution is an assemblages of suggestions at best or just an impediment in practice have a new good idea. From the Good Idea Fairy.
I miss the “Old, Weird America.” It is nearing extinction, I think. Sure, it had its flaws. But I miss it. Lord, how I do miss it.
An aspect of the Old, Weird America is the old, weird, ethnic Chicago. I loved that city. But it is almost gone. Not quite gone; but getting there.
Which is why I recently moved to northwest Indiana, which is sort of a vestigial part of the old weird America. For how long, I can’t say. Possibly for as long as the vast corn field one block from my house remains a corn field. And open carry remains legal.
https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2022/11/22/is-gay-marriage-really-the-hill-the-gop-wants-to-die-on-in-2023-n512868
Allahpundit’s gone, but Hot Air continues to remind you it is not on your side, in this case with what are now chiches. Soi-disant ‘small government conservatives’ are people I cannot abide.
Kind of disconcerting how much of starboard media is now a subsidiary of Salem.
Does the so-called Respect for Marriage Act specify couples as the basic marital unit? Or does it make room for throuples and polycules like the one Sam Bankman-Fried was involved in? If legislation can do away with the traditional one man/one woman pattern for marriage, why not change the number of partners involved as well?
Couples and couplets. Sex and gender, and the transgender spectrum disorder. Why stop with two? The bigotry is profound.
Civil unions for all consenting adults. End political congruence (“=”). Stop the bigotry. #HateLovesAbortion
@PA Cat: “If legislation can do away with the traditional one man / one woman pattern for marriage, why not change the number of partners involved as well?”
Indeed. Consenting adults and all that.
To repeat, and with no desire to derail this thread, I want First Amendment / religious freedoms and rights protected, as necessary, from any legislation that seeks to enshrine marriage equality (the Dems have cleverly called their bill the “Respect for Marriage” Act).
By the same token, I want marriage equality protected from fundamentalist Christians and any others who seek to impose their personal religious beliefs on their fellow citizens.
Over and out.
@MollyG:any others who seek to impose their personal religious beliefs on their fellow citizens.
I presume you support laws against theft and murder, despite the religious beliefs that underpin those laws.
The test isn’t whether a law imposes someone’s religious beliefs on someone else not sharing it.
Yes, I know, non-religious people such as myself often endorse such laws, but that’s true for basically any law. Everyone is seeking to impose their personal beliefs on everyone, religious or otherwise…
It would be truly inconceivable for the federal and state governments to use the Defense of Marriage Act to actively persecute churches for wrong think or wrong theology via tax policy. (LOL) Never would that happen! (LOL) Surely protection of First Amendment rights will be utmost in the legal process. (LOL) Shocked. truly shocked I am.
Over and out, whatever for whomever, carry on as you have. A society without rules is you goal. Good luck with that.
If the Defense of Marriage Act was ruled unconstitutional, how is the Respect for Marriage Act any less constitutional?
I think the goal is a whole set of “Respect for [ ___ ]” laws…
…with [ ___ ] meaning whatever “Biden”—the nation’s “RESPECTER”-in-Chief—wants it to mean on any particular day…
…such that “The Bill of Rights” will be replaced, de facto, by “The Bill of Respect”…
…once again, meaning whatever on whatever particular day….
Related (a warning of the ever-increasing web of censorship, what all this “transformation” portends and what the end game will be—though thanks to Trudeau, “Biden”, the EU, the WTF and various other global “gamers”, we already have more than an inkling…):
“Will Elon Musk Turn Twitter’s Tide Against Censorship?”—
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/11/23/elon-musk-twitter-censorship.aspx
Not for the faint of heart…even though the goal is PRECISELY to totally demoralize an already bewildered “We the People”…by confusing them, starving them, panicking, them and emotionally (but not only) clubbing them into submission.
For example, they could pass a “Respect for Fauci” Act…
(or “Respect for CDC” Act…, etc.)
…whereby in order to respect Fauci (as required by law) you’d have to constantly remember to forget that Fauci’s need to cover up this, that and the other caused massive despair and death…
https://twitter.com/TheJikky/status/1595226572822564864?cxt=HHwWgMDSlbeHsaMsAAAA
H/T Hans Mahncke twitter feed.
Just one example of a “Respect for…” Act.
Respect for Pronouns Act.
Why did you cap him?
He dissed me and my *ithc.
Culture wars.
Another inconceivable:
https://redstate.com/jeffc/2022/11/22/attorney-suspected-colorado-mass-shooter-identifies-as-non-binary-n663047
If you don’t do this, that, or the other; you haters, they will kill themselves or commit mass murder. We need a law! (sarc)
Red diaper raskin pointed out we are fighting world war trans in the caucasus
Just like the guy with the white cat says
Would appear that the latest round of that rancid rascal’s so-called “trans” wars just took place in Colorado…
(Realizing that politics is a magnet for certain types of critters, but WHERE do they find these people?)
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
Meanwhile, it seems that Pfizer, Moderna, et al. are in dire need of a bit more cash (are their shareholders chomping at the bit?)….
“…Biden COVID Minion Tells Americans “God Gave Us Two Arms” For Multiple Vaccines”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/watch-biden-covid-minion-tells-americans-god-gave-us-two-arms-multiple-vaccines
And so… the “Respect for Big Pharma” Act…(?)
Well this reaction was completely unexpected:
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/11/23/insane-narrative-shift-occurs-after-bombshell-revelation-q-club-shooter-is-non-binary-n663097
We need a new Constitutional Ammendment; the Respect For Marriage Act cannot protect those special souls (from themselves) alone.
om and Barry Meislin– the non-binary Colorado shooter’s story just keeps getting weirder: the shooter (now named Anderson Lee Aldrich) was born Nicholas Brink but changed his name in 2016 because his biological father (Aaron Brink) is a porn star (among other sketchy activities) with the stage name “Dick Delaware.” Kinda makes you wonder whether Daddy Dearest performs for the Biden crime family at their weekend retreat in Rehoboth Beach. Maybe “Dick Delaware” has a thing going with Hunter, who knows?
“Aldrich’s dad has a colorful and checkered history that includes crystal meth addiction, mixed martial arts, porn, and time in prison. The name change petition, obtained by the Denver Gazette, and written by Aldrich’s maternal grandmother Pamela Pullen, reads, ‘minor wishes to protect himself and his future from any connections to birth father and his criminal history. Father has had no contact with minor for several years.'”
https://heavy.com/news/aaron-brink-anderson-lee-aldrich-father-dad/
Photo of “Dick Delaware” (fully clothed) at the link.
When I ran my own blog I tried for about two years to get people to understand the importance of getting the government out of marriage. Rather than arguing whether marriage should extend to same sex couples, or polygamists or, or, or… the answer is: The Government should have no jurisdiction over how consenting adults choose to relate to one another, couple (or throuple, or quadrouple) or cohabitate.
The government needs to know who you choose to contract with regarding power of attorney, co-mingling of assets, etc. None of that is dependent on a sexual relationship with anyone. Marriage is not a government function! For the lovely Mrs. Firefly and me marriage was a Catholic ritual. We made a promise to one another and God, not Nancy Pelosi or Chief Justice John Roberts. We also filed the necessary paperwork with the state to codify the legal stuff; property, medical power of attorney, etc…
Those posts were always some of the most contentious, always generating over 100 comments. I don’t know that I ever changed anyone’s opinion. A common response was: “The government has an interest in the family and laws should be created to protect heterosexual marriage.”
Well folks, we’ve reinforced the approach that the government has a say in how and whom people marry and even expanded that role. So we continue down this merry path towards nihilism.
Nice work, “Conservatives.”
“Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato.”
Here’s what I always wondered:
What if there were a caterer who was adamantly pro-choice? Like, they’re a one issue voter, and that issue is abortion. Great.
But then along comes Penny Pro-Life who asks Abortion Annie (the caterer) to cater for their upcoming Right to Life convention.
I guarantee Annie would want nothing to do with that event. But her opinion isn’t a religious one. Would she have the right to turn down this event based on her beliefs? Would the MSM side with Annie or Penny? Would Penny have a legitimate case to sue Annie?
(Edited to add that being pro-life isn’t necessarily a religious belief despite the left always framing it as such. So Annie might not necessarily be discriminating Penny based on religion)
NS:
I think you’ve answered your own question. Not a religion.
However, just change the hypothetical to a christening or something of that sort, and I think there might be a case. But probably the person wouldn’t sue and would just go on to someone who didn’t have a problem with the request.
People who seek out those who are against something for religious reasons and then sue them for refusal are ordinarily leftist activists.
I was (am) very happy to see Rufus T. Firefly’s (12:26 pm) post.
I have long held that there needs to be a separation not so much between church and state here, as much as between marriage and state. No need to detail again RTF’s delineating of legal responsibilities and privileges, as he did an excellent job summarizing those.
BUT might that logically extend to analogous legal contracts among groups of consenting adults, rather than just between consenting adult couples? Things can get messy, . . . , but when legal minutiae enter the room, things generally can/do get messy.
Rufus T Firefly:
If there is blame for conservatives about this issue (gay marriage>gender madness>normalization of pedophilia (etc.)), one birthed another (?), it would be not recognizing how relentless the left is in pushing, always pushing to the next outrageous position. One might just as well blame the autistic libertarian positions regarding social issues; drugs, sex, even rock and roll. 🙂
“I am a partner in a same-sex marriage. To my mind, since the government is in the marriage business, same-sex couples are entitled, as a matter of basic justice and civil rights, to all the marriage-related and -derived rights, benefits, and responsibilities that accrue to heterosexual couples.” – MollyG
Many states tried to accommodate gays by creating an equal legal framework called a civil union. That wasn’t acceptable. Same sex couples had to have the relationship defined as a marriage.
But notice you identified the relationship as same-sex. You recognize there is a distinction.
So after 10,000 years of recognizing marriage as the union of a man and a woman, we decided to change the definition.
For an even longer time, societies knew what a woman and a man were. We’re now uncertain. A man can be pregnant. A woman can have a penis. Definitions changed.
All of this in a vain attempt to create absolute equality.
Rufus T. Firefly suggests government get out of the marriage business. Maybe it’s time to rethink civil unions- defined as the legal partnership of a man with a man, a woman with a woman or a woman with a man. A marriage would be defined as the legal relationship of a man with a woman.
I’m sure there would be plenty of non-religious heterosexual couples eager to embrace a civil union, leaving marriage for those nutty traditionalists, religious or not.
As Althouse said after Obergefell, “you lost, get over it.” But the left won’t let us get over it, until we are properly submissive.
Well, yeah, the problem is all the rights and privileges associated. If marriage were entirely separate, and rights and privileges assigned by legal contracts entered into by the parties, then a lot of the problems would solve themselves. But we’re talking about health insurance benefits besides inheritance.
Brian E (3:14 pm) mentioned civil unions. Bingo! — that’s the phrase(ology) that was escaping me at the time I wrote what I wrote (1:56 pm). Carry on, good folks . . .
Dred Scott and Plessy Furgeson and Roe have a few words for Althouse and Obergerfell: Never doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Regarding the Respect For Marriage Act, respect doesn’t mean what they say it means. What are the statistical trends on marriage vs cohabitation in the last 50 years or more? Any trends? Stable 2 parent households vs non-intact or non traditional households (don’t say broken homes). Nevermind …..
The goal is destruction of existing societal frameworks, For justice, and love! It takes a village to raise a child, but something about the tragedy of the commons seems to be ignored. Nevermind ….
MollyG, I’m not interested in the arrangements you make in your personal life.
I am interested in the torture being done to my beloved English Language.
‘Marriage’ has ALWAYS meant the sexual union of a male and a female human. The only other applications of the word are metaphors.
Using ‘marriage’ to describe a relationship which is not, and cannot be, a marriage is like calling a carrot a turnip,
}}} This explains why controversies and lawsuits over same-sex marriage celebrations have focused on bakers, photographers, web designers, printers, meeting halls, bed and breakfasts, and florists—with decidedly mixed success for people of faith.
Uhhh. NO.
This is missing a single, very important word:
Christian
Those BRAVE BRAVE protesters have not once — not once — made any complaints about an Islamic bakery or other refusing to service their marriage requests.
Funny, huh? I wonder why that is…?
}}} ‘Marriage’ has ALWAYS meant the sexual union of a male and a female human. The only other applications of the word are metaphors.
Using ‘marriage’ to describe a relationship which is not, and cannot be, a marriage is like calling a carrot a turnip,
Mrrr. TBH, that’s an implied part of it.
The REAL issue here is that we have two different ASPECTS of what marriage is.
There is the legal aspect of it — that which allows one member to see the other in the hospital, that which allows one to sign a contract binding to the other, one that allows them to commingle assets and funds and pay taxes based on that commingling…
Then there is the religious aspect of it — which ties to the specific religious principles involved. Clearly, Christian and Islamic principles strongly reject the notion, and Judaism does so somewhat. Not sure what the position of Buddhists, Taoists, and Confucians is…
The government does have some right/power to act for the former — it has no business interfering with the latter.
And that is where the real, main issue lies… And the fact that this discussion never takes place in the light of that aspect of things is one major cause of problems.