Ann,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I actually agree with a great deal of what you said. One of the things we agree on is civil unions. I do not oppose society allowing homosexual couples the right to form legally binding civil unions, with rights comparable to a married couple (for example, in tax codes, insurance plans, hospital visitation rights, etc.)
My objection is to a change in definition of marriage. And, as you note, one of the reasons I stated was a concern over freedom of religion. If legally binding same-sex civil unions (called by any name other than "marriage") are allowed, churches whose doctrines do not approve of these unions can simply refuse to conduct the ceremonies. For a church to say, in reference to this newly created homosexual civil union, "We don't offer that service" will not, in my opinion, be challenged in court.
However, if the definition of marriage is changed, churches will NOT have the option of refusing to perform same-sex marriages. Any church which says, "We will marry *these* couples, but not *those* couples" will immediately be sued for descrimination.
You talk about the rights of churches, and distinguish them from the rights of the people. Here I strongly differ. Freedom of religion *is* a right of the people. In the United States of America, it is a Constitutional right. I maintain it is one of our most fundamental rights. (It is the First of the so-called Bill of Rights to our Constitution.)
I think it is interesting to note that Wikipedia has the following to say about Totalitarianism: Common to all definitions is the attempt to mobilize entire populations in support of the official state ideology, and the intolerance of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, entailing repression or state control of [...] churches.
I object to the use of the word "right" to describe the ability of a person to marry whomever he pleases. As I have stated previously, in America a person simply does NOT have the right to marry whomever he pleases. Specifically, he cannot marry (a) a minor, (b) a close relative, (c) a person who is already married, and (d) a person of the same sex.
I do distinguish between the so-called "right" to marriage (which is not an absolute right) and the right of a person to love whom he or she pleases, to live with whom he or she pleases, and basically to live his/her life without interference. For this reason, as I've said, I do not oppose the institution of some sort of legally-binding civil union.
