Anna,
Obviously you feel very strongly about this issue. You say the religion of one group should not be forced on society as a whole. I agree! But this isn't a case of one group forcing their religion on everyone else. First, it is not the religion of one group. The definition of marriage as a union between male and female has been the standard, throughout all societies and all religions, from the beginning of history.
And it hasn't been "forced" on society. Up until very, very recently, it was universally accepted by everyone in every society (even by homosexuals!) It is only within the past decade or so that some people have been speaking about changing the definition, and they have so far not convinced enough people to obtain a majority vote in favor of changing it. The question is still under debate. If the day comes when enough people believe as you do (as has already happened in several other countries), then the definition will be legally changed here as well.
One of the reasons I don't want that to happen is that if it does, I believe it will have a disasterous effect on our 1st Amendment rights. You disagree.
Do you really believe that no gay couple (not one!) would take the case to court if they were refused marriage in a church?
I notice you live in California, surely you have seen how high the emotions are running on this issue. You have seen the protests in the streets. Perhaps you even saw the pro-same-sex-marriage ad on TV, in which the "Mormon missionaries" forceably remove the wedding rings of a lesbian couple and rip up their marriage contract, after telling the couple that they are there to "take away your rights". You have seen protests in front of churches, and even disruptions of the services themselves. I think it is fair to say that many gays are very, very angry at "organized religion".
A young couple today being told they have to be Catholic to be married in the Catholic cathedral will most likely respond with a "duh!" Will every single gay couple who is refused a marriage in church have the same response, or will some couples react in anger and offense? Will no one decide to push the issue by taking it to court?
I already gave the example of the Boy Scouts. Like churches, the Boy Scouts are protected by the 1st Amendment (in the case of churches, Freedom of Religion; in the case of the Boy Scouts, Freedom of Association). That hasn't stopped the ACLU from suing them (and winning) based on claims of "public accomodations" (private entities which provide some service to the public must comply with Title III nondiscrimination requirements that prohibit exclusion, segregation, and unequal treatment).
I do not believe that the reasons churches currently have for refusing marriage ceremonies fall under the Title III requirements prohibiting "exclusion, segregation, and unequal treatment". I am not so sure about refusing to perform a same-sex marriage. The first suit against a church, and it is a VERY real possibility that we will be looking at federal regulations requiring churches to either perform marriages indiscrimiate of the sex of the marriage partners, or lose their tax-free status (or stop performing marriages altogether).
I hope this does not happen. If legislators do change the definition of marriage, I would hope that they specifically stipulate that churches are free to continue to perform traditional marriages without being obliged to perform same-sex marriages. And I would hope that the gay community respect the decisions of the churches. But I look at current events, and I have to say that I believe if same-sex marriage is approved, the suits against the churches are not just possible, but inevitable.
I'm not really sure in what way you think same-sex marriage will "strengthen" the separation of church and state.
What do you think about the suggestion that, since the majority of people do not want to change the definition of marriage, we leave it as it is. Instead, we create legally binding civil unions and work to guarantee rights comparable to those of married couples?
