One odd question that came out on the survey in question was reflected in this: "63 percent agree and 27 percent disagree that pastors should be allowed to refuse to officiate same-sex weddings if they are made legal in their state" I concur, in terms of public law (the law should not be able to compel someone to perform a religious ceremony against their will). On the other hand, nobody I know of is proposing such a bill, nor can I think of any reason why someone would.
Southern Baptist Convention Poll More Bad News for Anti-Gay Activists
The Southern Baptist Convention’s polling arm LifeWay is out with a new poll revealing widespread support for gay rights, particularly among young people. According to the survey, a clear majori
I think it's just a safe guard for the future. Laws (or rights) have a funny way of evolving depending on the loudest cultural voice. Reference the ongoing fight in gun control as an example.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again. As long as government stays in the "marriage" business, this is an issue of religious freedom; there will always be the threat of government action against a religious institution that proclaims that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. The solution to all of this political mess is simple: Government should not be in the "marriage" business any more than it is in the "baptismal" business or the "Bar Mitzvah" business.
Marriage is as much a secular as religious institution and has been for a very long time. There's no reason that the government can't or shouldn't be involved in the legal aspects of what it means to be married or allow marriages the "church" considers wrong.
You can get married without religious trappings or using a church of any kind. Being an atheist, my marriage was conducted by a Justice of the Peace in an outdoor ceremony at a small local park. There wasn't a Jesus on a cross to be seen outside of the one on my mother-in-law's necklace. There are plenty of gay-friendly churches that will offer their services if you're dead set on it, but legally it's not necessary. You can just sign the paper in front of witnesses and drop all the rest of it if you want to. That's all the government really requires of a marriage ceremony.
I completely agree that the government should not be in the "Holy Matrimony" business, +James D.. Recognize civoil unions (or even call them, correctly, civil marriages), and let the churches (et al.) do whatever ritual they feel compelled to do.
But there are no government rules that have ever forced a church to perform a blessing of any sort — baptism, communion, last rites, marriage. And there are plenty of churches (or individual pastors) that have plenty of discriminatory rules about who they will or won't perform those blessings — by gender, age, race, or (of course) religion. I see no basis to think that gay marriage will be the first when there are churches operating to this day that won't marry mixed-race couples.
(There might be pressure or punishment within a church body if such marriages are not performed, or if they are, but that sort of thing is not under government purview, either.)