1. Some have raised the question, “If a church refuses to marry two people, will the church’s free exercise rights be superseded by people’s liberty/privacy/gender rights?”
I doubt it. For example, the Catholic church is not supposed to marry two people in its own physical space if at least one is not Catholic. Also, many churches require that couples go to some counseling sessions with them before getting married in their space. Basically, just because straight men and women have the right to marry legally doesn’t mean that they can get married wherever they want, by whomever they want — that has never been the case in the United States, and hopefully never will be.
Essentially, we have one word, “marriage,” for two very different phenomena — one, a legal contract, and two, a religious/spiritual partnership. While this is confusing in a judicial-discursive sense, there are a shitload of things in this world that are wayyyy more confusing.
2. We really should just streamline the legal definition of marriage. I believe we should define legal marriage as a contract between two consenting adults — nothing more, nothing less.
All that bullshit about this paving the way for a man to marry a horse has always been sheer fear-mongering idiocy, but defining marriage as a contract between two consenting adults, once and for, would render those fools’ rants absolutely impotent.
3. Honestly, I wish the state would just back out of marriage altogether, but a. that’s not in the state’s interest and b. its citizenry would freak the eff out. Just sayin’…if peoples’ argument is that it’s a religious institution, great! Let’s back on up, then.
4. You can be on the side of history and make decisions based in hope, or you can make decisions out of fear and insecurity. You can try to leave the world better than you left it, or you can leave it worse. Just because it’s easier to leave your messy room as-is than to clean up your shit doesn’t mean the easier route is better.