|
A church is a private organization, no? Sort of like the Boy Scouts, and they've had a pretty good success rate at retaining their bigotry^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hrestrictive membership criteria. I don't believe that a minister is compelled to marry anyone who asks him to perform the service, much like a business can be choosy about who they sell to. They could come up with more reasons than H&R Block why they "couldn't" do it without touching "because you're gay," if they wanted to be subtle.
And if they don't want to be subtle, a countersuit claiming that forcing the church to marry gays violates the church's freedom of religion and is itself discriminatory could muddle up the courts for a while. They'd have better success denying gays in that manner than, for example, denying interracial or non-white marriages, because they can point to (varyingly-interpretatable) Scripture concerning homosexuality.
The point is not to drag all churches kicking-and-screaming into the 21st Century. Many would gladly remain in the 17th, and may do so. But those who wish to modernize and adapt should be allowed to have their marriages recognized, and those who are non-religious should not be denied rights specifically because certain religious groups have a problem with it.
|