Last edited Tue Apr 29, 2014, 01:46 PM - Edit history (1)
What ceremony, specifically? A commitment ceremony? A ceremony to celebrate a life partnership? No. That's not what they're asking to be allowed to do. The law doesn't prevent that. The complaint is about churches not being allowed to perform marriage ceremonies specifically, between people who cannot legally marry. Freedom of religion does not give a religious body that right, nor should any sensible person want it to.
It's a legal loser. Trying to throw a "religious freedom" argument into the mix is just silly, and has no constitutional basis in this case. The use of an equal protection argument to compel civil governments to permit and recognize same-sex marriages has been successful in a number of jurisdictions-it's a proven winner. Why screw it up by adding an argument that has no basis and that no court will accept (i.e. that "religious freedom" gives a religious body the right to usurp the power of civil government to dictate laws concerning marriage)?