Anyone Out There Who Can Explain the Gay Marriage Thing?

Is there anyone out there who can explain to me why gay marriage is a problem?

There are issues which are contentious in this country that I have a definite side on. Abortion, for example. I understand where the other side is coming from, I understand where the argument is, I just don't agree with the pro-lifers. There are other issues where I'm more confused, mostly because I understand both sides of the issue. Gun control, for example, is an issue that has flipped back and forth in my head so much over the years, it gives me a headache just thinking about it. I get it, you know? On the one hand, they kill people, on the other hand, I believe the founders of our country recognized that this new government they were creating would be fallible and would have the ability to become tyrannical, and they believed that if that happened, the people had the right to change that government. Part of the reason for the second amendment is so that all the guns aren't in the hands of the military, and to be frank, though I think that point of view is a little crazy and I think we're further away from it being a necessity than we've been since Gingrich decided to try and impeach Clinton due to a BJ, it's something I can hold on to for that side of the debate. It's something that makes it clearer to me. But Gay Marriage? No. I don't get that one at all.

Since, apparently, about fifty percent of the country disagrees with me on this one, I was hoping that a couple of them could actually try and explain a rational reason to me why gay men and women shouldn't be allowed to get married. What I don't get about it is that well... my fellow straight people, it's got nothing to do with us. Except of course it might help out the noun issue when talking to our gay friends of more advanced age. You know what I mean. When you're hanging out with your gay friend who's in his mid thirties, and you want to ask about Tom, that guy he's been with for a decade, the noun's a pain in the ass. Partner? What is it, are they in business together? Boyfriend? They're in their mid thirties, the term doesn't fit. Manfriend? That's the stupidest damn phrase you can make. You know what term would make it easier? Husband. Of course, until they were married, you couldn't use that one, but once they were? Husband. Clear pronoun, everyone knows what it means, would make the linguistics of our daily life that little bit easier.

So here's what I'm looking for in an argument against gay marriage. First off? Clarity. I don't want to have to read through your argument fourteen times to start to see what it means. As a side note - punctuation and vowels are what make written language work. Please try and make sure that they're there. Secondly? Logic. I don't want an emotional argument. Civil rights are not about what you like and what you don't like. We live in a representative democracy that's supposed to be built on the equality of all citizens, regardless of creed, race, or orientation. If the country actually is founded on the family, how exactly will it hurt the country to legally recognize a few more families? Third, I want a real argument. Don't pull shit out of your ass and tell me I can digest it again. Don't tell me that gay people make bad parents, because that's a) never been shown to be true, b) in my own anecdotal experience (not really useful data, but you should know my own bias) been shown to be false. And if it's all about "a kid needs a male and a female parent" than we should just outlaw single parent households now. As soon as one parent dies, the kids are thrown into an orphanage, to protect them from not having a mommy or a daddy.

So what have you got? Economics? I should mention here that weddings are a multi-BILLION dollar industry in this country, and that I have no doubt that making gay marriage legal would throw tons of additional money into that system. Devaluing straight marriage? Why? How is it that two people saying "I love you and I want to be with you forever" effects your marriage in any way, shape, or form? I just want to know if there's anything in your arguments outside of just being uncomfortable with gay people.

Really, I'm not trying to be facetious in this article. I don't get it. Really. I don't get it at all, and I want someone to explain it to me, because I don't like not understanding things. Realize that we're not talking about religion here, we're talking about civil rights. If your church/synagogue/mosque decides to not allow gay weddings, well that's a private issue, not a public one. They can do that anyway with straight people. They probably won't, but they can, because they're private institutions and not bound by the same restrictions as legal ones.

Please. Someone out there, just explain it to me. I don't like not understanding you. What's the argument against gay marriage?

Comments

[Willow712]

I don't get it either. Try to have a debate with anti marriage equality and they start spouting sin and perversion, not okay in the Bible, etc. Try to have them keep religion out of it, and they start bringing up natural procreation, sanctity of marriage, etc. They just cannot keep religion out of it. That is their only point in an argument. They will say that marriage has naturally evolved throughout the centuries, blah blah blah. When you point out previous centuries dowries, marriage for title, concubines, polygamy in the Bible, etc. they get off track and begin again about sin and perversion.

I do not understand how someone marrying for love, stability, commitment, and acceptance is hurting someone else's marriage. One would think that if people marry for love, it would strengthen the idea of marriage. But who am I to wonder? Marriage equality's time has come. Its time.

[johnbdonovan]

It's quite simple. All you have to do is to think of your mother and your father at different times in your life. If they were good, then they both loved you, but your father's love expressed itself in a way that was different from your mother's love. The difference between men and women goes far beyond anatomy, and goes to the heart of the psychology of social stability. No amount of gender-bendering will ever erase this.

[reinzig]

You've made an excellent argument about why children should have strong, loving adults of both sexes in their lives but nothing that precludes same-sex marriage.

[johnbdonovan]

I've always had a lot of people in my life but only two parents, both precious to me. There's a difference.

[carsntrucks]

JD, buddy? It's called the Google Machine. Just like I'm sure you can find hundreds of websites and articles laying out the argument FOR gay marriage, I'm sure you can find one or two that don't rely solely on religious text AGAINST gay marriage. This is a completely disingenuous article and you know it. Come back when you're actually selling something other than wolf tickets. Thanks.

[reinzig]

I respect your presumedly earnest desire to understand the logic behind opposition to equal marriage. But there's a problem. Asking for the facts here is like asking why people chewing loudly makes some people feel like screaming. It's a limbic system response, not an intellectual one.

It's about religion. Period. It's not about logic, economics, the word marriage, (you honestly think that opponents were out there advocating for civil unions before this marriage thing came up? Puhleeze), about churches "having to" marry anyone,

It's about protecting a narrow world view. It's about religions that tell people that they're going to fry if they don't toe the line. People oppose it because their pastor told them to. People oppose it because their child might think that it’s acceptable and then THEY will burn, and who would not seek to protect their children from that? People oppose it because they have placed 100% of their self-value in the tenets of their religion, and if they live in a society where the validity of that is called into question, then who will they be? This is why people say that it will ruin their marriage--people have, at heart, a nagging fear that the rules and structure around which they have built their entire lives are houses made of straw, and if a strong wind comes and blows them over, then yes, they will be damaged.

You don't get it because there is nothing to get. Sorry.

http://hereswhatidontget.blogspot.com

[johnbdonovan]

Religion need not enter the debate. It's all about the inherent child neglect of fatherlessness.

[reinzig]

So you're in favor of gay men getting married, just not lesbians?

Please provide a citation of peer-reviewed research in which the "child neglect of fatherlessness", producing negative outcomes, involves gay and/or lesbian couples.

[reinzig]

Then why do we continue to allow straight people to get married, when there is so much research and history of straight men abandoning straight women and the children they have produced together, producing all the societal ills that you mention?

[drdanfee]

HI JD, thanks for asking. I too am quite puzzled, so here is my best take so far. You will fail to grasp the antigay marriage arguments if you don't pay strict attention to their basic Modus operandi. So far as I can tell from reading many articles, interviews, blogs, etc. , the MO is nearly always purely if not strongly presuppositional. You start with one allegedly unquestionable presupposition, then build other presupposes on top of that. The starter varies. Sometimes the starter presupp is, Gays are unnatural. For unnatural we could substitute, disordered, sick, creepy, disturbed, etc. Another frequent starter presupp is, Gays are immoral period. Sometimes this starter is a two step, with step one being the presupp that being gay is reducible to specific sexual behaviors, then step two being the presupp that such sexual behaviors are categorically immoral. A third starter has recently been added to the antigay marriage opposition. In this strategy, the presupp is simply that ideally all children will best thrive when having an intact mom-dad parent couple. Fact is, many mom-dad parents are still neglectful or abusive; but hey, let's not confuse ourselves with facts? Presupps sound plausible. We buy into unquestioned verities (which actually are in some cases, quite empirically questionable). Presupps are nearly imprevious to empirical data, unless we first notice their typical MO. Unless we examine our presuppositions, critically. Good luck, glad you are thinking about these things. Best wishes.

[BacktotheFront]

(Part two) This is not about religion, it is about trying to set moral standards to benefit mankind and children. A man can never become a woman, should he try? Maybe those instances are aberrations. If anything is leftover, human compassion can accommodate certain laws, never the same level as between a man and a woman which even in weakness is timeless as the growing universe.

[BacktotheFront]

This is a bad time for many people and nations. Many people are doing some deep soul searching and are giving a second thought to spirituality and God. This issue (Gay issues, trying to achieve the same comparison of a timeless union between a man and a woman are actually untimely). What I am trying to say is that the Gay movement has easy pickings on the failures of all mankind during these times, (Financial, greed, selfishness, easy love and passion with supposedly no complications, too many TV programs and not enough study and reading to enlighten ones self, too many choices, etc., I could go on.) Gays are now pointing out the faults of total society, when they thrived on such behavior with a vengeance, ( as much as I hate to bring up such examples, movies like "Cruising" with Al Pacino). Those were and perhaps typical of behavior still practiced. Regular people (religious or not) have known/seen such homosexual behavior among acquaintances/ co-workers etc. Durings these times it is a duck shoot on pointing out weak morality issues. But at least be careful of origination s of who could out do even the straight people in their own weakness. My first experiences with gay people that I knew/met by casual straight friends thirty years ago would make the movies Cruising look classy with their adventures they told me about. Let paint the whole picture here, not only select stories.

[Disuberence]

Awesome work stereotyping an entire group of people based on "My first experiences with gay people that I knew/met by casual straight friends thirty years ago." and on "movies like 'Cruising' with Al Pacino". This must be true because I've never heard of 'casual' couples that change partners frequently from anywhere! Oh wait, you said it yourself! I've also seen heterosexual people kill millions in movies. That doesn't mean I am naive enough to believe that a FICTIONAL movie is an accurate representation of all heterosexuals. Please, do the world a favor and go back to hiding in your bunker while screaming the sky is falling.

[SJBrown]

The state/government, right or wrong, linked laws, benefits, contracts, and religious beliefs/practice/ritual. The discussion on changes to marriage should consider the reality of that relationship and consider what, if any, impact of changes would have on religious marriage ritual/ceremony and on marriage as an sacred institution.

The Church performed marriages as a religious ritual/ceremony before there was an US or constitution and the state(s) required those marriages to be licensed. The state(s) even required a specific liturgy and the name of the minister that performed the ceremony. So, I'd argue that religious organizations certainly have an interest in any redefinition of marriage.

Civil marriages are a change and are relatively new given our nation's history. However, I don't see how there could have been a constitutional consideration of marriage as anything but a sacred institution given there weren't civil marriages at the time.

As a society, we have accepted marriage between a man and a woman. Divorce, inheritance, birthright, and status of children are all linked to marriage in culture, law, practice, and policy. We have to be deliberate when we restructure it.

The benefits that state/federal government give to married couples are independent of marriage laws and can be changed and do change. It is a separate debate.

Marriage is also a civil right. The state can certainly restrict or provide similiar contract for other types of relationships. That doesn't require a dismantling of traditional marriage.

[Lance734]

"The state can certainly restrict or provide similiar contract for other types of relationships. That doesn't require a dismantling of traditional marriage."

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't make sense to me. How does allowing a formerly excluded class of people access to a civil institution dismantle said institution? It seems to me that marriage could only be dismantled by preventing all people from getting married to begin with, or forcibly dissolving marriages, etc. I don't see how allowing Couple X to get married either dismantles marriage altogether or in any way demeans Couple Y's marriage.

"The discussion on changes to marriage should consider the reality of that relationship and consider what, if any, impact of changes would have on religious marriage ritual/ceremony and on marriage as an sacred institution."

Again, we don't have to consider whatever impact might occur on religious marriage b/c we're only talking about CIVIL marriage. Religious people/institutions remain free to believe whatever they want, but the Govt cannot deny any person the equal protection of the laws. Rights & benefits are NOT a separate debate b/c marriage is the gatekeeper to all of those rights (as well as obligations) - you can't access these rights/obligations w/o being married. I'm sorry, but despite your beliefs, in this country civil marriage is separate from religious marriage so religious organizations should have no interest/say in how the Govt administers civil marriage laws pursuant to constitutional commands of equality & human dignity.

[SJBrown]

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't make sense to me.

France, Solidarity Pacts. Let marriage in tact and at same provided contractual options for other types of relationships. 90% of couples entering into those Pacts are man/women today. The was expected and the reason it is worth considering is that it indicates that there is a desire for alternatives to traditional marriage; and a respect for marriage as a sacred institution between a man/woman. That isn't a value judgment for me.

On not considering traditional marriage. That is where we differ. First, the state certainly can and does deny marriage license and contract. If you look at the age restrictions, there are a few states that allow children as young as 13/14 to marry with permission; and the age of consent varies by state.

Marriage is not a "gatekeeper" of benefits. That is part of a totally nuanced argument. Civil unions don't bring benefits. Why not? Because we haven't adjusted code/laws/entitlements to do so. Where is the law that would restrict those changes?

I didn't necessarily express my beliefs so will not consider your apology.

[Romulus]

There really isn't any way to effectively any POV in the HuffPo comments section. There's barely enough room for the original blogger. That could be one reason why we rarely see any thoughtful comments on either side of the question. The only way I can help you, Jacob, to understand the POV if those who oppose SSM is to point you to http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.htmlwebsites where they are allowed enough room to state their case. Here's another one:

[Romulus]

I too wondered what the reasoned objections were to SSM so I googled that. Here is one long essay on the topic for your review:
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php?year=2007&month=01&title_link=the-necessary-amendment--27

One paragraph in that essay:

Studies of the effects of same-sex marriage in Scandinavia and the Netherlands by Stanley Kurtz raise at least the inference that when there is a powerful (and ultimately successful) campaign by secular elites for homosexual marriage, traditional marriage is demeaned and comes to be perceived as just one more sexual arrangement among others. The symbolic link between marriage, procreation, and family is broken, and there is a rapid and persistent decline in heterosexual marriages. Families are begun by cohabiting couples, who break up significantly more often than married couples, leaving children in one-parent families. The evidence has long been clear that children raised in such families are much more likely to engage in crime, use drugs, and form unstable relationships of their own. These are pathologies that affect everyone in a community.

[joedecker]

"Studies of the effects of same-sex marriage in Scandinavia and the Netherlands by Stanley Kurtz"

Ummm, Stanley Kurtz is an American commentator, not a someone doing social science research. Got a citation for the peer-reviewed study that that appeared in?

[Romulus]

As I stated, just like Jacob, I have been looking for someone to coherently explain the opposition to SSM. I'm simply sharing what I've found so far. I didn't write the above, I simply copied and pasted it from the website whose link I posted. I had no idea who Stanley Kurtz is so I googled him:

Kurtz graduated from Haverford College and holds a Ph.D. in social anthropology from Harvard University

So he's not simply a commentator but someone educated in social anthropology.

I have no idea if he is published in peer-reviewed journels.

[maddie0001]

Couldn't the dreaded Social Welfare state be responsible for the decline in "traditional marriage"? I've heard that America's economic collapse has led to more people staying married simply because they can't afford to leave. Maybe in the countries you cite women don't face financial ruin and so therefore don't have to stay in a bad marriage.

As for children embarking on a life of sex, crime and drugs - hasn't "traditional marriage" given us plenty of that?

[Romulus]

I think it's highly likely that the Social Welfare state plays a big part in the decline of traditional marriage. One of the arguments that I read talked about how laws are often made with the best of intentions only to find those laws make thinks worse. The Law of Unintended Consequences.

When lawmakers decided to help out single mothers in the 60's and 70's, they could not have imagined this would lead to an explosion in households headed by single-mothers with a total lack of resposibility on the part of absent fathers.

When lawmakers decided that people shouldn't be forced to continue unhappy marriages and passed no-fault divorce laws they couldn't forsee a time when 50% of all first marriages would end in divorce.

If these lawmakers could go back in time, would they change those laws?

This argument against SSM asks what will be the unforseen, unintended consequences of legal SSM?

[BeninOakland]

Stanleyt Kurtz pulled the whole thing right out of the place where the sun don't shine. The "trends " he cited were the central portionof trends that began in the '70's, long before gay marriage was a twinkle in anyone's eyes, and ignoring what happened afterwards. Cherry picked data. You can see an alaysis of this so-called data at http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/28/2107. Other people have debunked it as well, but I can't find (at the moment) the name of the professor who did so.

But it is wrong on it's face for two reasons. 1) Kurtz absurdly claims that somehow, if gay people are allowed to marry, this will have an effect on heterosexual procreation. Using scare terms like "global decline in fertility", "depopulating world", and "asexual reproduction" he wants to blame gay people for falling fertility in western countries. Utter nonsense dressed up in psuedo-scientific drag! Is his "depopulated" planet the same overpopulated one I am on? I can see it now. John to Susan: "Look. Ben and Paul are getting married. Let's not have kids!" If heterosexuals are not reproducing, maybe you need to talk to them about it instead of denying us marriage. 2) Norway and Sweden, the countries Kurtzclaims to have studied, both legalized gay marriage. Either the gay lobby is all powerful--I wish-- or those governments are incredibly stupid, or Mt. Kurtz made the whole thing up.

[HERESTHEDEAL]

First, you cannot say you are not talking about religion. Marriage is based on a biblical term, and to millions of people is a sacred thing. (No they don’t all treat it that way, but nor will all of the gays treat it as such if they had the opportunity.) I should not have to ever clarify that yes I’m married to a man, as this demeans the importance of my religious beliefs.
Second, your statement that our church can decide to refuse a gay wedding is a private issue, is completely false. If gay marriage were legal, any church/synagogue/mosque that refused to perform the wedding is guilty of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Believe me, Gloria Allred would be the first person at the top of the courthouse steps suing for said discrimination.
I am not anti-gay, or homophobic, or any other hateful label you wish to apply to me. I believe that ALL people should be given the same rights as married people, be them gay or non-religious people who wish to be joined with another person of the opposite sex (who greatly contribute to the comment in parenthesis above.), but not call it marriage. Bottom line: give everyone the rights they desire, have the ceremony that will create all of the revenue you believe it will, but do not destroy someone else’s existing rights by calling it a marriage. If it were called something else, I believe the law would pass.

[wiseupnow]

"If gay marriage were legal, any church/synagogue/mosque that refused to perform the wedding is guilty of discrimination based on sexual orientation. "

Really? How come we don't hear of the Catholic Church being sued daily for refusing the "Rite of Marriage" to divorced people?

Don't pull anything performing your "logic gymnastics" to explain why this isn't the same thing.

[Ale]

"Marriage is based on a biblical term"
So, your saying that marriage, which has been part of pretty much every single culture for the whole of humanity was created in the bible?
Sorry, it simply was not.
But a a bible term, Polygamy is certainly ok then

[Lance734]

"If gay marriage were legal, any church/synagogue/mosque that refused to perform the wedding is guilty of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Believe me, Gloria Allred would be the first person at the top of the courthouse steps suing for said discrimination."

I understand your passion and your wanting to defend your church or other religious institution. But it appears you're horribly misinformed. No religious institution can be forced to marry ANY couple, period. The Constitution protects the free exercise of religion which is why these scary lawsuit scenarios are baloney. Some of the anti-equality forces have paraded nightmare scenarios like this from "other states" but those situations actually had nothing to do with same-sex marriages.

"I should not have to ever clarify that yes I"m married to a man, as this demeans the importance of my religious beliefs... I am not anti-gay, or homophobic, or any other hateful label you wish to apply to me."

Sorry, but the fact that you take offense to having to clarify that (as a woman) you're married to a man belies your claim that you don't have any possible prejudice/bias against LGBT people. Even if someone were to ask you such a question, there is nothing to be offended about unless there's something inherently negative in your mind about someone thinking you could be gay. Just politely correct them (if needed) and move on. Why seek out an insult where there was none to begin with?

[James Sr.]

The descriptions sited from "Studies of the effects of same-sex marriage in Scandinavia and the Netherlands by Stanley Kurtz" sound like the typical 50's red scare paranoia. Perhaps h worked on Reefer Madness too.

[41magisfine]

I know a lot of gay people including cousins, uncles, and friends who are couples. One of the most influential persons in my work career was my gay boss and I still keep in touch with him through email and occasional visits even though I took a different job 19 years ago. I mention that to offer a peek into my own makeup; I am not homophobic.

One potential problem I see with gay marriage is the legal rights and protections it gives them could be subject to abuse by them. For example; you have two “married” couples who want to adopt a child, one composed of two men and one composed of a man and a woman. The child would obviously have to be awarded to the two gay men because to do anything else would be discriminating against them. And that is wrong.

The courts won't have the luxury of trying to peer into their crystal ball and determining which couple MIGHT provide the better environment for the child. They will simply take the "safe" way out and award the child to the couple composed of two men. That way, no one can fault their decision because they didn't "discriminate" against someone.

Be honest, face the facts. Any time you create a "protected" class, they are most likely going to prevail in a court proceeding because no one has the courage to risk upsetting them and their political allies.

[PlaceboStudman]

Couldn't the same thing be said about a wealthy vs an economically disadvantaged heterosexual couple? How do we know for sure, without that crystal ball that no one has, that the wealthy parents are going to be better parents than the economically disadvantaged parents? And for that matter, how do you even define what a "better" parent is? Is it just does the parent abuse the children? Or is it based on how much material goods the parents can provide? Or is it based on how much love and caring and compassion that parents can give their child, regardless of the gender or economic status of the parents?

[SelenicMagick]

The courts don't "peer into a crystal ball" NOW when it comes to which parents to "award" a child to. Your argument is disingenuous at best.

[BeninOakland]

Sorry, this doesn't make any sense. It isn't how the adoption process works. People are not fighting it out over kids. the law in every state requires that children be placed by the simple standards of "best interests of the child." Period.

you could just as easily argue in the case of two heterosexual couples, one black and one white, that the black couple will always win.

This has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, and nothing to do iwth adoption. I'm afraid oyuj ust made it up. So much for your non-homophobic cred.

[Baguette Clang]

How is extending marriage rights to all citizens creating a protected class? I'm not asking for special rights--I'm asking for EQUAL rights.

[Ale]

You create an equal class, not a protected class
And denying an entire people their civil rights because of the possibility of poor jurors prudence is not simply not reasonable.

[arachne646]

Our Supreme Court ended the confusion of laws across Canada 5 or 10 years ago by stating that under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, part of our Constitution, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited, and we have had equal marriages since. Having men and women marry the person whom they love has not led to bizzare marriages of animals or other things that were predicted, and my marriage of 29 years to my husband (I am his wife) has not been devalued or harmed in any way.
Freedom of religion is not affected, because a church or other religious group decides if it will marry only it's members or only those who have never been married before; in short, those whom it choses for any reason. God bless those who work for justice.

[mmerose]

I love that phrase "confusion of laws." When the original institution was a religious idea, and some religions perform gay weddings, but then different governments start making political guesses at what their policy should be, that sure is "confusion of laws."

[SelenicMagick]

The "original institution" was NOT a "religious idea"... Good God the indigenous peoples on EVERY continent got married BEFORE Europeans/Christians "discovered" them.

The "original institution" was NOT always man/woman either... man/woman/woman... man/man... and woman/woman were ALL fairly common in North America BEFORE the advent of Europeans on the Continent and society didn't fall apart.

[mmerose]

Me too. Absolute no-brainer, to a thinking person. Problem is, religion by definition is a state of non-thinking, and a lot of the beliefs that it is forbidden to analyse are based on ancient tribal taboos based on ancient tribal ignorance and xenophobia.

Fast forward to the 18th century. A couple of influences known as The Enlightenment and Deism allowed our Founding Fathers to really make an effort to escape the mental chains. But there were still profound social pressures to conform to religion-based morality. Understandable that they couldn't sort it all out in one or two generations. Churches maintained a monopoly as purveyors of marriage, and marriage continued as a major definer of legal rights, to an extreme degree if you had the misfortune to be female.

Along the way the government decided it had an interest both in "regulating" marriage, as in health certificates, and in taxing marriage. So a dual system of church and civil marriage evolved, and nobody even thought about the government passively adopting church standards of eligibility, even though there began to be official recognition of marriages performed only civilly.

[mmerose]

Chapter 2. Eventually, women realized it didn't make any sense for them to be second-class citizens, black people realized that slavery actually wasn't in their nature, and on down the line gay people started to wonder wuzzup.

Now for the really bizarre part. CHURCHES, regular, "mainstream," tax-exempt churches, have realized that gay people are part of god's regular, "mainstream" creation, and we have religious gay marriage, but the government still only recognizes the other church weddings.

Will somebody please explain how this is not a violation of the Establishment Clause, when the government discriminates in favor of some church weddings and against others?

[NoOneSpecial]

I'm all for gay marriage, but your last question could easily be answered by looking at the case law in the US against polygamy or against the use of peyote in Indian religious rituals.

Just because a church authorizes a certain practice in no way makes such practice "legal" in the eyes of the law.

If that had been the case, then the MCC could have brought suit the moment they began performing same-sex marriages decades ago. No suit was filed because there was no case law or legal precedent on their side to win.

[creekside]

Good post.
California is crumbling financially and yet they can't seem to recognize the obvious conclusion which is that gays are people and therefore under the constitution are entitled to all of the same rights as heterosexuals.
Next.

[menmykoko]

You won't get a rational argument. It becomes irrational once you introduce religion.